HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 1997/12/09
\
,
'" deciare '1n"o, !'Or,1!t" 01 perjury that I am
emplr)' a . ,,~ ..~ '};~1'13 in the
0" ',' ~ .:-; ):j
t:.::. ,C.'C,d3t
~I-;~. ::. .ii/-rfJl- ~.JX1 itJ1 N;~/~" PUbliCC;:~~~~;~:~~~~;
Tuesday, December 9, 1997
6:00 p.m.
Rel!ular Meetim.! of the City of Chula Vista City Council
CALL TO ORDER
1.
ROLL CALL:
Council members Moot
Mayor Horton _'
Padilla
Rindone _, Salas _, and
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. MOMENT OF SILENCE
3.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
November 13, 1997 (Special MeetinglWorksession), November 18,
1997 (Regular City Council Meeting) and November 18, 1997
(Adjourned Meeting of the City Council).
4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY:
a. Oath of Office: Rickey R. Welch, II - Youth Commission.
CONSENT CALENDAR
(hems 5 through 15)
The staff recommendations regarding the following itellls listed ullder the Consent Calendar will be enacted by
the Council by one motion without discussion unless a Councilmember, a member of the public, or City staff
requests that the item be pulled for discussion. If you wish to speak on one of these items, please fill out a
"Request to Speak Fonn" available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the lIIeeting. Items pulled
from the Consent Calendar will be diSCUSSell after Board and Commission Recommendations anll Action Items.
Items pulled by the public will be the first items of busilless.
5. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
a. Letter from the City Attorney stating that Co until met in Closed Session on 11125197 and
12/2197. The City Attorney hereby reports that to the best of his knowledge from observance
of actions taken in Closed Session in which the City Attorney participated, that there were
no reportable actions which are required under the Brown Art to be reported. It is
recommended that the letter he received and tiled.
6.
ORDINANCE 2716
ESTABLISHING THE POGGI CANYON SEWER BASIN
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE TO PAY FOR SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE POGGI CANYON SEWER BASIN AS
A CONDITION OF ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS (second readine
and adontion) - The Poggi Canyon Basin Gravity Sewer Basin Plan was
prepared by Wilson Engineering to recommend sewer improvements necessary
to convey sewage flows from the Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin to existing or
proposed downstream sewerage facilities. Based on the analysis, a Development
Impact Fee of $400 per Equivalent Dwelling Unit should be established to pay
for these facilities. Staff re,commends Council place the ordinance on second
reading and adoption. (Director of Public Works)
Agenda
-2-
December 9, 1997
IB'?.<. Cj
7. RESOLUTION~ APPROVING MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING CONCERNING
WAGES AND OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
WITH THE CHULA VISTA MIDDLE MANAGERS ASSOCIATION FOR
FISCAL YEAR 1997/98, IMPLEMENTING THE SALARY AND BENEFIT
INCREASES FOR THE CHULA VISTA EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION,
WESTERN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERS, AND APPROVING THE
SALARY AND BENEFIT INCREASES FOR THE UNREPRESENTED
GROUPS OF EXECUTIVE MANAGERS, UNREPRESENTED
EMPLOYEES AND UNCLASSIFIED PART TIME EMPLOYEES AND
APPROPRIATING FUNDS FROM THE UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE
OF THE GENERAL FUND FOR THESE INCREASES AND THE
PREVIOUSL Y APPROVED INCREASES TO SALARY AND BENEFITS
FOR THE CHULA VISTA POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION -
Negotiating teams representing the City and Chula Vista Middle Managers
Association (CVMMA) have reached agreement on a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) covering fiscal year 1997/98. The proposed MOU was
ratified by the CYMMA memhership. The major changes to the terms and
conditions are outlined in the report. In addition, the City has also completed
negotiations with the Chula Vista Employees Association, Western Council of
Engineers, went through a med ami confer prm;ess with the Chula Vista Police
Officers Association. and the City Council provided general directions for the
unrepresented groups of Ex~cutivc Manag~rs, Unr~pr~s~nt~d Employ~es and
Unclassified Part Time Employees on salary and bendit increases. The cost of
all recommended increases are proposed to be appropriated from the
unappropriated fund balance of the General Fund. Staff recommends approval
of the resolution. (Budget Manager) 4/Sth's vote required.
jg-8"11
8. RESOLUTION tllle6 ACCEPTING AND AMENDING THE SALARY AND BENEFITS
INCREASES FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND DEPUTY
DIRECTOR OF THE CALIFORNIA BORDER ALLIANCE GROUP
(CBAG), AND APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FROM UNANTICIPATED
GRANT REVENUE - On 9/5/95, Council approved tbe City to act as the
"tiscal agent" for the CBAG and act as conduit to ohtain civilian support
personnel and to acquire related supplies for three employees. On 7/16/96,
Council approved adding two additional CBAG support personnel. This action
provides for both Executive Director and Deputy Director level positions tied
to the Federal pay schedule to receive a step increase within the prescribed
Federal General Schedule pay to be effective January, 1998. Staff recommends
approval of the resolution. (Chief of Police) 4/Sth's vote required.
/flgtf)..
9. RESOLUTION ~7 ACCEPTING $14,583 FROM SOUTH BAY COMMUNITY SERVICES
(SBCS) AND APPROPRIATING SUCH FUNDS FOR OVERTIME
NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
COMPONENT OF THE COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT GRANT - SBCS,
in partnership with the Police Department, was awarded a grant to form a
Family Violence Response Team. This grant provides a creative program for
gaining early access to families with children in which dom~stic violenct.': is
present. The grant reimburses the Police Department for overtime expenses
associated with domestic violence cases. Staff recommends approval of the
resolution. (Chief of Police) 4/Sth's vote required.
Agenda
-3-
Dljcember 9, 1997
10. RESOLUTION 18828 AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER (REPROGRAMMING) OF 1996 AB
3229 SUPPLEMENT AL LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT FUNDS IN THE
AMOUNT OF $33,569 FOR PURCHASE OF A CAD DISPATCH
COMPONENT TO SERVICE ANIMAL CONTROL ($18,569l AND
DEVELOPMENT OF MAP BOOKS ($15,000) FOR PUBLIC SAFETY -
During fiscal year 1996/97. Council accepted and appropriated 1996 AB 3229
Supplemental Local Law Enforcement funds in the amount of $356,408 for
payment of personnel, overtime, and purchase of equipment. Staff is
recommending that the funds set aside t'or purchase of the firewall and auto
ticket writers, which have not been purchased, be reprogrammed for purposes
of purchasing a computer aided rJispatching component and map hooks for public
safety. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Chief of Police)
11. THIS ITEM HAS BEEN DELETED FROM THE AGENDA
12. RESOLUTION 18830 APPROVING A VISION STATEMENT AND A SPENDING
ALLOCATION PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED QUARTER OF A CENT
SALES TAX FOR LIBRARIES - The County Board of Supervisors has re-
established the Regional Library Authority for the purpose of placing a quarter
of a cent sales tax on the b.tllot. At their first meeting, the Authority asked that
each library jurisdiction bring a "vision statement" and a spending plan to the
Authority's 12/11/97 meeting. Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
(Library Director)
13. RESOLUTION 18831 ACCEPTING CALIFORNIA STATE LIBRARY MATCHING FUNDS
AWARDED TO THE CHllLA VISTA LITERACY TEAM,
APPROPRIATING FUNDS, AND AMENDING FISCAL YEAR 1997/98
BUDGET - The Chula Vista Literacy Team has applied for and been awarded
$32,359 in California State Library makhing funds. Grant awards are based on
a match of $1 for every $4.68 raised and spent locally. The Lihrary received
a five-year California State Lihrary grant in 1987 to establish the Chula Vista
Literacy Team. A series of one-year extensions of the California Library
Services Act have continued funding for this program. Funds must he used to
support the library's adult literacy program. Staff recommends approval of the
resolution. (Library Director) 4/5th's vote re4uired.
14. RESOLUTION 18832 ACCEPTING CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ADULT
BASIC EDUCATION SECTION 321 GRANT FUNDS AWARDED TO THE
CHULA VISTA LITERACY TEAM, APPROPRIATING FUNDS, AND
AMENDING FISCAL YEAR 1997/98 BUDGET TO INCLUDE A .14 FULL
TIME EQUIVALENT POSITION - The Chula Vista Literacy Team has
applied for ami been awarded $5,970 in California Department of Education,
Adult Basic Education, Section 321 grant funds. The Literacy Team has applied
for and received these funds since fiscal year 1991/92. The base grant of
$3,500 must be used for supplemental staff development, assessment, and/or
networking. Remaining funds are calculated on the number of learner
attendance hours and may he used for staff development and/or other
enhancements to program quality. Staff reconunends approval of the resolution.
(Lihrary Director) 4/5Ih', vole re4uired.
Agenda
-4-
Decemher 9, 1997
15. RESOLUTION 18833 APPROVING THE PARK MASTER PLAN FOR ROLLING HILLS
RANCH NEIGHBORHOOD PARK - The neighborbood park at Rolling Hills
Ranch is a 7.0 acre sik located at Mt. Miguel Road and MacKenzie Creek
Road. Rolling Hills Ranch (formally Salt Creek Ranch) is in the eastern
territories of the City and is a planned residential community with a focus on
open space, trails, and a park system. Stall recommends approval of the
resolution. (Director of Parks, Recreation and Open Space)
* * * EN/) OF CONSENT CAU~N{)AIl * * *
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This is an opportunity for the general public to address the City Council on any subject matter within the
Council's jurisdiction that is not an item Oil this agenda for public discussion. (Slale law, however, generally
prohibits the City Council from taking action on any issues not included on the posted agenda.) If you wish to
address the Council on such a subject, please complete the "Request to Speak Under Oral Communications
Forni" available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Those who wish to speak,
please give your name and address for record purposes alld follow lip action.
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. If you wish to
speak to any item, please fill out the "Request to Speak Fonn /I available in the lobby and submit il to the City
Clerk prior to the meeting.
16.
PUBLIC HEARING
CONSIDERING RETAINING THE CALENDAR YEAR 1998 BUSINESS
LICENSE TAX RATES AT THE CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR 1997
LEVELS - The Business LiCense Tax ordinance is stmctured so that the
business license tax rates increase annually unless Council takes action to abate
them each year. Sinl.:C 1991. tax rates have remaineu the same due to annual
abatements. Since the tax rates have not heen increased as scheduled since':
1991, the taxes would more than uouhle for the vast l11<i:iority of husinesses on
1/1198 if Council did not pass a resolution to abate them to a lower level than
that allowed hy ordinance. Since revenue estimates in the current budget wen~
based on current tax rates. abating the Calendar Year 1998 tax rates to retain
them at the current level would notrequire an adjustment to this year's budgeted
revenue. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Finance)
RESOLUTION 18834 ABATING THE BUSINESS LICENSE TAX RATES FOR CALENDAR
YEAR 1998, HOLDING CALENDAR YEAR 1998 TAX RATES AT THE
CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR 1997 LEVELS
17. PUBLIC HEARING TO NOTICE USE OF FISCAL YEAR 1997/98 COPS FUNDING PER
CITIZENS' OPTION FOR PUBLIC SAFETY FOR LOCAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT SERVICES - The 1997/98 State budget was adopted
appropriating $359,028.58 to the City's Police Department as a result of
Assembly Bill 3229, Brulte. This Bill allocates State money to police
departments for purposes stipulated by the Citizens Option for Public Safety
(COPS) Program. Staff recommends approval of the resolutions. (Chief of
Police)
A. RESOLUTION 18835 ACCEPTING $359,028.58 FOR LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT FROM
THE ST ATE BUDGET TO PA Y FOR POLICE PERSONNEL ($108,000)
AND RELATED EQUIPMENT ($251,028.58)
B. RESOLUTION 18836 AUTHORIZING THE CHIEF OF POLICE TO UTILIZE (REPROGRAM)
SA VINGS RESULTING FROM THE COMPETITIVE PROCUREMENT
PROCESS FOR ADDITIONAL UNSPECIFIED SAFETY EQUIPMENT
AND SUPPLIES
Agenda
-5-
Decemher 9, 1997
18. PUBLIC HEARING TO NOTICE ACCEPTANCE AND APPROPRIATING OF LOCAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS - The Police Department has
recently received notice of a 1997 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant
(LLEBG) Award in the amount of $269,518 from the Bureau of Justice
Assistance. These funds were allocated to the Police Department based on a
three-year average Part 1 V ioknt Crimes. Part 1 V ioleol Cril11t:s afe murder
and non-negligent manslaughters, forcihle rape, rohhery, and aggravated assault
as reported by the FBI. Acceptance and appropriation of these funds requires
a public hearing per stipulations of the LLEBG. Staff recommends approval of
the resolutions. (Chief of Police)
A. RESOLUTION 18837 ACCEPTING $269,518 FROM THE 1997 LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
BLOCK GRANT AND APPROPRIATING SUCH FUNDS FOR THE
FOLLOWING PURPOSES: $10,000 DRUG COURT, $149,518 IN
OVERTIME, AND $110,000 FOR EQUIPMENT PROCUREMENT -
4/5tl1's vote required.
B. RESOLUTION 18838 AUTHORIZING THE CHIEF OF POLICE TO UTlLlZE (REPROGRAM)
SAVINGS RESULTING FROM THE COMPETITIVE PROCUREMENT
PROCESS FOR ADDITIONAL UNSPECIFIED SAFETY EQUIPMENT
AND SUPPLIES
19. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING EXISTING AND PROPOSED RATES AND CHARGES FOR
COX COMMUNICATIONS' BASIC SERVICE TIER AND ASSOCIATED
EQUIPMENT AND CABLE PROGRAMMING SERVICES TlER, AS
SUBMITTED BY COX COMMUNICATIONS TO THE CITV VIA
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (FCC) FORMS 1235,
1240 AND 1205 - Part I, 2, and 3 of the resolution represent Cox
Communications' annual cost-based requests for increases in their maximum
permitted rates. Such increases are allowed by the FCC as long as they
conform to a formula of intlationary and programming expenses. Chula Vista's
consultant revieweJ these calculations and found them to he appropriately
justitied. Part 4 of the resolution is hased on an FCC decision rejecting Chula
Vista's 1996 complaint regarding upgrade-related increases in expanded hasic
services and Cox's request to allow increases in the maximum permitted hasic
rates accordingly, as both rates were computed on the same upgrade-based
formula. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Principal Management
Assistant Young)
RESOLUTION 18839 (1) APPROVING VARIOUS PROPOSED COST-BASED DECREASES
FOR INSTALLATIONS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT; AND (2)
APPROVING PROPOSED COST-BASED INCREASES IN THE
MAXIMUM PERMITTED RATES FOR THE BASIC SERVICE TIER
($2.86); AND (3) APPROVING PROPOSED COST-BASED INCREASES
IN THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED RATES FOR THE CABLE
PROGRAMMING SERVICES TIER ($0.46); AND (4) APPROVING
PROPOSED UPGRADE-RELATED INCREASES IN THE MAXIMUM
PERMITTED RATES FOR THE BASIC SERVICE TIER ($1.57)
Agenda
20.
PUBLIC HEARING
21.
PUBLIC HEARING
-6-
December 9. \997
CONSIllERATION OF A PROPOSED AGREEMENT TO GRANT A
MODIFIED FRANCHISE AGREEMENT TO COX COMMUNICATIONS
(COXCOM) INC. - One of the economic development sub-goals outlined by
Council in the past year's priority setting workshops was the review of all City
franchise agreements. This report presents a proposed amendment to the City's
franchise with Cox Communications. Among the terms of this proposal. the
City would be able to implement an additional phase of the SmartCommunity
program as developed in a series of 1996 public workshops. Other
recommendations include an increase in the franchise fee to the industry standard
level of 5 % of gross revenues, extending the agreement for an additional ten
years and making rdated changes in the Municipal Code. At the reoue.'Jt of the
aDDlicant. staff recommends the DuhHe hearinu he continued to the meetinu
of 12/16/97. (Principal Management Assistant Young)
ON ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 93-01 FOR ALLEY
IMPROVEMENTS EAST OF SECOND A VENUE AND SOUTH OF "J"
STREET - Council accepteu a petition signeu hy a m,,:iority of the property
owners aujacent to the alley east of Second Avenue hetween "J" and Kearney
Streets to form a special assessment district for the construction of improvements
to the alley. Council subsequently awarded the contract to Fox Construction
Company which completed the alley improvement project on 10/30/95. Staff
recommends the Duhlic hearinu he continued to the meetinu of 1/6/98.
(Director of Public Works) Continued from the meeting of 11/25/97.
BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
This is the time the City Council will consider items which have been forwarded to Ihemfor consideration by one
of the City's Boards, Commissions, and/or Committees.
None suhmitteu.
ACTION ITEMS
The items listed in this seclion of the agenda are expecled 10 elicit mbslanlial discussions and deliberations by
the Council, staff, or members of the general public. 11/e items will be considered individually by the Council
and slaffrecommendations may in certain cases be presented in Ihe alternalive. 11/Ose who wish to speak, please
fill out a "Request to Speak" fonn available in Ihe lobby and submil it 10 the City Clerk prior 10 the meeting.
22. RESOLUTION 18840 AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 1997/98 BUDGET TO INCLUDE 1.00
FULL TIME EQUIVALENT POLICE AGENT POSITION AND
VEHICLE; ACCEPTING AND APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED
GRANT REVENUES IN THE AMOUNT OF $155,804 FROM HIGH
INTENSITY DRUG TRAFFICKING AREA (HIllTA) GRANT FUNDS -
The Police Department has two Agents working with the United States Custom
Service (USCS), one Agent at Operation Alliance, the other Agent at the
Air/Marine Narcotics Interdiction Group. Both positions are funded through
HIDT A grants. The Police Department is now seeking to expand and enhance
its investigative efforts hy participating in another HIDT A position lead by the
FBI investigating "Narcotic Traffickers." Staff recommends approval of the
resolution. (Chid of Police) 4/5th', vote required.
Agenda
-7-
December 9. 1997
ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
This is the time the City Council will discuss items which have been removed from the Consent Calendar.
Agenda items pulled at the request of the public will be considered prior to those pulled by CounciLmembers.
OTHER BUSINESS
23. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT(S)
a. Scheduling of meetings.
24. MAYOR'S REPORTlS)
a. Consideration of vote regarding the change in language in the Draft Comprehensive Management
Plan to specifically support the creation of the South San Diego Bay National Wildlife Refuge.
25. COUNCIL COMMENTS
ADJOllRNMENT
The meeting will adjourn to (a closed session and thence to) the Assessment Process on Saturday, December 13,
1997 at 8:00 a.m. to meet in the Human Resources Office, Administration Building, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula
Vista, CA., thence to the regular City Coul1cilmeeting on Decemher 16, 1997 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council
Chambers.
A special meeting of the Redevelopment Ageni;y will he held immediately following the City Council meeting.
"\ declare under pcna:ty of perjury that I arll
em:J!o:'etj bj t;.;c -,~~[l,::,: ,;-f GhU:3 V~sta in the
OHice of U;e '~,lt./ : . '""; ~~ ~mJ t:'lat I p03tod
this A&cnc.;:~/No'd-:~ :::;~ the LJulictin Board at
the PUbli~C S;.pticeG BuYjin,~ and at C~it Hail on ,
Tuesday, December 9,1997 DATED, A'1 '7 SIGNED S!.:- ,,' CouncIl Chambers
6:00 p.m. ( " Public Se.rvices Building
(immediately following the City Council Meeting)
Citv of Chuta Vista Citv Council
CLOSED SESSION AGENDA
Effective April 1, 1994, there have been new amendments to the Brown Act. Unless the City Attorney, the City
Manager or the City Council states otherwise at this time, the Council will discuss and deliberate on the following
itellls of business which are pennitted by law to be the subject of a closed session discussion, and which the
Council is advised should be discussed in closed session to best protect the interests of the City. The Council is
required by law to return to open session, issue any reports of final action taken in closed session, and the votes
taken. However, due to the typical length of time taken up by closed sessions, the videotaping will be temlinated
at this point in order to save costs so that the Council's return/rom closed session, reports of linal action taken,
and adjournment will not be videotaped. Nevertheless, the report of final actioll taken will be recorded in the
lIlinutes which will be available in the City Clerk's Office.
I. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING:
1. Existing litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9
. Jones Intercahle v. City of Chula Vista.
. Wolfe v. City of Cbula Vista.
. Griffin v. City of Chula Vista.
. Corley v. Tew, City of Chu\a Vista.
2. Initiation of Litigation pursuant to Subdivision (c) of Government Code Section 54956.9 (I
case)
3. Significant exposure to Litigation: Gon~rnment Code Section 54956.9
EEOC Charge No. 345980141
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR - Pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.8
.
Property:
City right-of-way.
Negotiating parties:
City of Chula Vista (Gerald Young) and Cox Cable.
Under negotiations:
Price and terms of interest in City right-of-way granted by
Cahle System Franchise.
Closed Session Agenda
-2-
December 9, 1997
PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957
. City Manager
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957,6
. Agency negotiator: John Goss or designee I,)r CYEA, WCE, POA, IAFF, Executive
Management, Mid-Management, and Unrepresented.
Employee organization: Chula Vista Employees Association (CYEA) ami Western Council of
Engineers (WCE), Police Officers Association (POA) and International Associalion 01 Fire
Fighters (IAFF).
Unrepresented employee: Executive Management, Mid-Management, and Unrepresented.
2. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION
~V?-
~
~-..:~~
~"'".......~
"-~~--
CllY Of
CHULA VISTA
OFFICE OF THE CITY A TIORNEY
Date:
November 26, 1997
From:
The Honorable Mayor and CitYz:counc~~~
John M. Kaheny, city Attorney ~
Report Regarding Actions Ta en in Closed Session
for the Meeting of 11/25/97 and 12/2/97
To:
Re:
The city council met in Closed Session on 11/25/97 to discuss Jones
Intercab1e v. City of Chu1a Vista, Griffin v. City of Chula Vista,
Conference with Real Property Negotiator: Terms for modification of
Ground Lease, Tri-Party Agreement, Sublease and/or Settlement
Agreement-Los Alisos Company and Universal Concerts, Inc.; price
and terms for interest in city right-of-way granted by Cable System
Franchise and labor negotiations.
The Redevelopment Agency met in Closed Session on 11/25/97 to
discuss Conference with Real Property Negotiator: Potential sale of
Redevelopment Property-John Moores and Larry Lucchino.
The city Council met in Closed Session on 12/2/97 to discuss Public
Employee Appointment - City Manager.
The city Attorney hereby reports to the best of his knowledge from
observance of actions taken in the Closed Session in which the City
Attorney participated, that there were no reportable actions which
are required under the Brown Act to be reported.
JMK: 19k
C:\lt\clossess.no
s~//
276 FOURTH AVENUE. CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 91910 . (619) 691-5037 . FAX (619) 585-5612
tl f'oo-Ca'6i.oTls'Aec)ded~
I
r\\~
cf:}~/
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, ~ ~.
CALIFORNIA ESTABLISHING THE POGGI CANYON ~
SEWER BASIN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE T~~
FOR SEWER IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE ~~
CANYON SEWER BASIN AS A CONDI,\,~ OF
ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS #~ .
WHEREAS, the city's General Plan Land Use and Public Facilities
Elements require that adequate public facilities be available to
accommodate increased population created by new development, and
ORDINANCE NO.
:17 JJ;
WHEREAS, the city Council has determined that new development
within certain areas within the City of Chula vista as identified in
this ordinance, will create adverse impacts on certain existing public
facilities which must be mitigated by the financing and construction of
those facilities identified in this ordinance, and
WHEREAS, developers of land within the city are required to
mitigate the burden created by their development by the construction or
improvement of those facilities needed to provide service to their
respective developments or by the payment of a fee to finance their por-
tion of the total cost of such facilities; and,
WHEREAS, development within the City contributes to the cumulative
burden on various sewer facilities in direct relationship to the amount
of population generated by the development or the gross acreage of the
commercial or industrial land in the development; and,
WHEREAS, the Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin ("Basin") is that area of
land within the city of Chula vista and the County of San Diego from
which wastewater will flow by gravity from Poggi Canyon into the otay
River Valley. This area is shown on the map attached hereto as Exhibit
"A", Poggi Canyon Sewer Study Map. This map is also included as an
attachment to the Poggi Canyon Basin Gravity Sewer Analysis; and,
WHEREAS, Wilson Engineering has prepared the Poggi Canyon Basin
Gravity Sewer Plan ("Plan") dated July 31, 1997; and,
WHEREAS, said Plan includes an estimate of ultimate sewer flows
anticipated from the Poggi Canyon Basin, recommends sewer facilities
needed to transport these flows, and establishes a fee payable by
persons obtaining building permits for developments within these basins
benefiting from the construction of these facilities; and,
WHEREAS, on October 29, 1997 a public meeting was held with the
owners and developers of properties located within the Basin to discuss
the Plan and city staff recommendations for establishing the Poggi
Canyon Sewer Basin Development Impact Fee ("Impact Fee"); and,
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial
INFORMATION PACKET
SCANNED AT FIRST READING
OF THIS ORDINA~CE ON:
/'IN :<5 ;qq7
- 6/(
study, IS-98-06, of potential environmental impact associated with the
proposed "Project" and has concluded that there would be no significant
environmental impacts, and recommends adoption of the Negative
Declaration issued on IS-98-06; and,
WHEREAS, on November 25, 1997 a Public Hearing was held before the
city Council to provide an opportunity for interested persons to be
heard on the approval of the Plan and establishment of the Impact Fee;
and,
WHEREAS, the City Council determined, based upon the evidence
presented at the Public Hearing, including, but not limited to, the Plan
and other information received by the City Council in the course of its
business, that imposition of the Impact Fee on all developments within
the Poggi Canyon Basin in the City of Chula Vista for which building
permits have not yet been issued is necessary in order to protect the
public safety and welfare and to ensure effective implementation of the
City's General Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the amount of the
Impact Fee levied by this ordinance does not exceed the estimated cost
of providing the public facilities identified by the Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DOES
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
Environmental Review
That the adoption of the Impact Fee ordinance will have no
significant environmental impacts, and the City Council of the
city of Chula Vista hereby adopts the Negative Declaration
issued on IS-.98-06.
SECTION 2.
Approval of Plan.
The City Council has independently reviewed the
and has adopted the same, by Resolution No.
form on file with the city Clerk and on file in
the City Engineer.
proposed Plan
, in the
the Office of
SECTION 3.
"Facilities".
The facilities to be financed by the Impact Fee are fully
described in Table 4-5 of the Plan at page 42, Attached as
Exhibit 1, and incorporated herein by this reference,
("Facilities"), all of which Facilities may be modified by the
City Council from time to time by resolution. The locations
at which the Facilities will be constructed are shown on
Exhibit "A", Poggi Canyon Basin Sewer Study Map, which is
included in the Plan. The City Council may modify or amend the
2
~ tf,-.:z
list of projects herein considered to be part of the
Facilities by written resolution in order to maintain
compliance with the city's capital Improvement Program or to
reflect changes in land development and estimated and actual
wastewater flow.
SECTION 4.
Territory to Which Fee Is Applicable.
The area of the City of Chula vista to which the Impact Fee
herein established shall be applicable is set forth on Exhibit
"A", and is generally described herein as the "Territory."
SECTION 5.
Purpose.
The purpose of this
in order to provide
Facilities within
accordance with the
ordinance is to establish the Impact
the necessary financing to construct
the areas shown in Exhibit "A",
City's General Plan.
Fee
the
in
SECTION 6.
Establishment of Fee.
The Impact Fee, to be expressed on a per Equivalent Dwelling
unit ("EDU") basis, and payable prior to the issuance of
building permits for development projects within the
Territory, is hereby established to pay for the Facilities.
SECTION 7.
Due on Issuance of Building Permit.
The Impact Fee shall be paid in cash upon the issuance of a
building permit. Early payment is not permitted. No building
permit shall be issued for development projects within the
Territory unless the developer has paid the Impact Fee imposed
by this Ordinance.
SECTION 8.
Determination of Equivalent Dwelling Units.
Each single family detached dwelling or single family attached
dwelling shall be considered one EDU for purposes of this
Impact Fee. Each unit within a mUlti-family dwelling shall be
considered 0.75 EDU. Every other commercial, industrial, non-
profit, public or quasi-public, or other usage shall be
charged at a rate calculated in accordance with the method for
estimating EDUs set forth in Exhibit "B", Sewer Benefit Area
Fees Based on Land Use Categories.
3
~t~3
SECTION 9.
Time to Determine Amount Due; Advance Payment
Prohibited.
The Impact Fee for each development shall be calculated at the
time of building permit issuance and shall be the amount as
indicated at that time and not when the tentative map or final
map was granted or applied for, or when the building permit
plan check was conducted, or when application was made for the
building permit.
SECTION 10.
Purpose and Use of Fee .
The purpose of the Impact Fee is to pay for the planning,
design, construction and/or financing (including the cost of
interest and other financing costs as appropriate) of the
Facilities, or reimbursement to the City or, at the discretion
of the City if approved in advance in writing, to other third
parties for advancing costs actually incurred for planning,
designing, constructing, or financing the Facilities. Any use
of the Impact Fee shall receive the advance consent of the
City Council and be used in a manner consistent with the
purpose of the Impact Fee.
SECTION 11.
Amount of Fee; Amendment to the Master Fee Schedule
The Impact Fee shall be calculated at the rate of $400 per
EDU. Chapter XVI, Other Fees, of the Master Fee Schedule is
hereby amended to add Section which shall read as
follows:
"
Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin Development Impact Fee.
This section is intended to memorialize the key
provisions of Ordinance No. ,but said Ordinance
governs over the provisions of the Master Fee Schedule.
For example, in the event of a conflict in interpretation
between the Master Fee Schedule and the Ordinance, or in
the event that there are additional rules applicable to
the imposition of the Impact Fee, the language of the
Ordinance governs.
a. Territory to which Fee Applicable.
The area of the City of Chula Vista to which the Impact
Fee herein established shall be applicable is set forth
in Exhibit "A" of the Poggi Canyon Basin Gravity Sewer
Plan dated July 31, 1997, and is generally described as
the Poggi Canyon Basin.
b. Rate per EDU.
4
</ftPi ~. - i
The Impact Fee shall be calculated at the rate of $400
per EDU, which rate shall be adjusted from time to time
by the City Council.
c. EDU Calculation.
Each single family detached dwelling or single family
attached dwelling shall be considered one EDU for
purposes of this Impact Fee. Each unit within a multi-
family dwelling shall be considered 0.75 EDU. Every
other commercial, industrial, non-profit, public or
quasi-public, or other usage shall be charged at a rate
calculated in accordance with the method for estimating
EDUs set forth in Exhibit "B" to Ordinance No. ,
"Sewer Benefit Area Fees Based on Land Use Categories".
d. When Payable.
The Impact Fee shall be paid in cash not later than
immediately prior to the issuance of a building permit."
The City Council shall review the amount of the Impact Fee
annually or from time to time. The City Council may, at such
reviews, adjust the amount of this Impact Fee as necessary to
assure construction and operation of the Facilities. The
reasons for which adjustments may be made include, but are not
limited to, the following: changes in the costs of the
Facilities as may be reflected by such index as the Council
deems appropriate, such as the Engineering-News Record
Construction Cost Index (ENR-CCI); changes in the type, size,
location or cost of the Facilities to be financed by the
Impact Fee; changes in land use in the City's General Plan;
other sound engineering, financing and planning information.
Adjustments to the above Impact Fee may be made by resolution
amending the Master Fee Schedule.
SECTION 12.
Authority for Accounting and Expenditures.
The proceeds collected from the imposition of the Impact Fee
shall be deposited into a public facility financing fund
("Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin Benefit Area Fee Fund", or
alternatively herein "Fund") which is hereby created and shall
be expended only for the purposes set forth in this ordinance.
The Director of Finance is authorized to establish various
accounts within the Fund for the Facilities identified in this
ordinance and to periodically make expenditures from the Fund
for the purposes set forth herein in accordance with the
facilities phasing plan or capital improvement plan adopted by
the City Council.
5
----
~ c::-~
SECTION 13.
Findings.
The City Council hereby finds the following:
A. The establishment of the
protect the public safety and
effective implementation of the
Impact Fee is necessary to
welfare and to ensure the
City's General Plan.
B. The Impact Fee is necessary to ensure that funds will be
available for the construction of the Facilities concurrent
with the need for these Facilities and to ensure certainty in
the capital facilities budgeting for growth impacted public
facilities.
C. The amount of the fee levied by this ordinance does
exceed the estimated cost of providing the Facilities
which the fee is collected.
not
for
D. New development projects within the Territory
generate a significant amount of wastewater that
current sewer facilities can not service, therefore
construction of the Facilities will be needed to
service new development projects.
will
SECTION 14.
Impact Fee Additional to other Fees and Charges.
The Impact Fee established by this section is in addition to
the requirements imposed by other City laws, policies or
regulations relating to the construction or the financing of
the construction of public improvements within subdivisions or
developments.
SECTION 15. Mandatory Construction of a Portion of the Facilities;
Duty to Tender Reimbursement Offer.
Whenever a developer is required as a condition of approval of
a development permit to construct or cause the construction of
the Facilities or a portion thereof, the City may require the
developer to install the Facilities according to design
specifications approved by the City and in the size or
capacity necessary to accommodate estimated ultimate flow as
indicated in the Plan and subsequent amendments. If such a
requirement is imposed, the City shall offer, at the City's
option, to reimburse the developer from the Fund either in
cash or over time as Fees are collected, or give a credit
against the Impact Fee levied by this Ordinance or some
combination thereof, in the amount of the costs incurred by
the developer that exceeds their contribution to such
Facilities as required by this Ordinance, for the design and
construction of the Facility not to exceed the estimated cost
of that particular Facility as included in the calculation and
6
~
6-?
updating of the Impact Fee. The City may update the Impact
Fee calculation as City deems appropriate prior to making such
offer. This duty to offer to give credit or reimbursement
shall be independent of the developer's obligation to pay the
Impact Fee.
SECTION 16. Voluntary Construction of a Portion of the Facilities;
Duty of City to Tender Reimbursement Offer.
If a developer is willing and agrees in writing to design and
construct a portion of the Facilities in conjunction with the
prosecution of a development project within the Territory, the
ci ty may, as part of a written agreement, reimburse the
developer from the Fund either in cash or over time as Fees
are collected, or give a credit against the Impact Fee levied
by this Ordinance or some combination thereof, in the amount
of the costs incurred by the developer that exceeds their
contribution to such Facilities as required by this Ordinance,
for the design and construction of the Facility not to exceed
the estimated cost of that particular Facility as included in
the calculation and updating of the Impact Fee and in an
amount agreed to in advance of their expenditure in writing by
the City. The City may update the Impact Fee calculation as
City deems appropriate prior to making such offer. This duty
to extend credits or offer reimbursement shall be independent
of the developer's obligation to pay the Impact Fee.
SECTION 17.
Procedure for Entitlement to Reimbursement Offer.
The City's duty to extend a reimbursement offer to a developer
pursuant to section 16 or 15 above shall be conditioned on the
developer complying with the terms and conditions of this
section:
a. Written authorization shall be requested by the developer
from the City and issued by the city council by written
resolution before developer may incur any costs eligible
for reimbursement relating to the construction of the
Facili ties, excluding any work attributable to a specific
subdivision project.
b. The request for authorization shall contain the following
information, and such other information as may from time
to time be requested by the City:
(1)
Detailed descriptions of the
conducted by the developer
preliminary cost estimate.
work to
with
be
the
c. If the Council grants authorization, it shall be by
7
~ C:;-j
written agreement with the Developer, and on the fol-
lowing conditions among such other conditions as the
Council may from time to time impose:
(1)
Developer shall
specifications and
approval;
prepare all plans and
submit same to the city for
(2) Developer shall secure and dedicate any
right-of-way required for the improvement
work;
(3) Developer shall secure all required permits
and environmental clearances necessary for
construction of the improvements;
(4)
Developer shall provide performance
form and amount, and with
satisfactory to the City;
bonds in a
a surety
(5) Developer shall pay all City fees and costs.
(6)
The city shall be held harmless
indemnified, and upon demand by the
defended by the developer for any of the
and liabilities associated with
improvements.
and
City,
costs
the
(7) The developer shall advance all necessary
funds for the improvements, including design
and construction. The City will not be
responsible for any of the costs of
constructing the facilities.
(8) The developer shall secure at least three (3)
qualified bids for work to be done. The
construction contract shall be granted to the
lowest qualified bidder. Any claims for
additional payment for extra work or charges
during construction shall be justified and
shall be documented to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works.
(9) The developer shall provide a detailed cost
estimate which itemizes those costs of the
construction attributable to the improvements.
The estimate is preliminary and subject to
final determination by the Director of Public
Works upon completion of the Public Facility
Project.
(10) The
agreement
may
provide
that
upon
8
.~6-Y
SECTION 18.
determination of satisfactory incremental
completion of the public facility project, as
approved and certified by the Director of
Public Works, the City may pay the developer
progress payments in an amount not to exceed
75 percent of the estimated cost of the
construction completed to the time of the
progress payment but shall provide in such
case for the retention of 25% of such costs
until issuance by the City of a Notice of
Completion.
(11) The agreement may provide that any funds owed
to the developer as reimbursements may be
applied to the developer's obligations to pay
the Impact Fee for building permits to be
applied for in the future.
(12) When all work has been completed to the
satisfaction of the City, the developer shall
submit verification of payments made for the
construction of the project to the City. The
Director of Public Works shall make the final
determination on expenditures which are
eligible for reimbursement.
(13) After final determination of expenditures
eligible for reimbursement has been made by
the Public Works Director, the parties may
agree to offset the developer's duty to pay
Impact Fees required by this ordinance against
the City's duty to reimburse the developer.
(14) If, after offset if any, funds are due the
developer under this section, the City may at
its option, reimburse the developer from the
Fund either in cash or over time as Fees are
collected, or give a credit against the Impact
Fee levied by this Ordinance or some
combination thereof, in the amount of the
costs incurred by the developer that exceeds
their required contribution to such Facilities
as required by this Ordinance, for the design
and construction of the Facility not to exceed
the estimated cost of that particular Facility
as included in the calculation and updating of
the Impact Fee and in an amount agreed to in
advance of their expenditure in writing by the
City.
Procedure for Fee Modification.
9
flA--;- ~. -- /
Any developer who, because of the nature or type of uses
proposed for a development project, contends that application
of the Impact Fee imposed by this ordinance is
unconstitutional or unrelated to mitigation of the burdens of
the development, may apply to the City Council for a waiver or
modification of the Impact Fee or the manner in which it is
calculated. The application shall be made in writing and
filed with the City Clerk not later than ten (10) days after
notice is given of the public hearing on the development
permit application for the project, or if no development
permit is required, at the time of the filing of the building
permit application. The application shall state in detail the
factual basis for the claim of waiver or modification, and
shall provide an engineering and accounting report showing the
overall impact on the DIF and the ability of the city to
complete construction of the Facilities by making the
modification requested by the applicant. The city Council
shall make reasonable efforts to consider the application
within sixty (60) days after its filing. The decision of the
City council shall be final. The procedure provided by this
section is additional to any other procedure authorized by law
for protection or challenging the Impact Fee imposed by this
ordinance.
SECTION 19.
Fee Applicable to Public Agencies.
Development projects by public agencies, including schools,
shall not be exempt from the provisions of the Impact Fee.
SECTION 20.
Assessment District.
If any assessment or special taxing district is established to
design, construct and pay for any or all of the Facilities
("Work Alternatively Financed"), the owner or developer of a
project may apply to the City Council for reimbursement from
the Fund or a credit in an amount equal to that portion of the
cost included in the calculation of the Impact Fee
attributable to the Work Alternatively Financed. In this
regard, the amount of the reimbursement shall be based on the
costs included in the Basin Plan, as amended from time to
time, and therefore, will not include any portion of the
financing costs associated with the formation of the
assessment or other special taxing district.
SECTION 21.
Expiration of this Ordinance.
This ordinance shall be of no further force and effect when
the city Council determines that the amount of Impact Fees
10
!Jfi-1O
c:: -/0
which have been collected reaches an amount equal to the cost
of the Facilities.
SECTION 22.
Time Limit for Judicial Action.
Any judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set
aside, void or annul this ordinance shall be brought within
the time period as established by Government Code Section
66022 after the effective date of this ordinance.
SECTION 23.
Other Not Previously Defined Terms.
For the purposes of this ordinance, the following words or
phrases shall be construed as defined in this Section, unless
from the context it appears that a different meaning is
intended.
(a) "Building Permit" means a permit required by and issued
pursuant to the Uniform Building Code as adopted by
reference by this City.
(b)
"Developer" means
development.
the
owner
or
developer
of
a
(c) "Development Permit" means any discretionary permit,
entitlement or approval for a development project issued
under any zoning or subdivision ordinance of the City.
(d) "Development Project" or "Development" means any activity
described in section 66000 of the state Government Code.
(e) "Single Family Attached Dwelling" means a single family
dwelling attached to another single family dwelling, with
each dwelling on its own lot.
SECTION 24. Effective Date.
This ordinance shall become effective sixty (60) days after
its second reading and adoption.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
John P. Lippitt
Director of Public Works
~~
John Kaheny
City Attorney
H:\home\attorney\poggidif.ord
11
jM-416///
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TITLE:
/ Y %,) '7
"L-3":it_1 ~
Resolution Approving Memorandum of Understanding concerning
wages and other terms and conditions of employment with the Chula Vista
Middle Managers Association, for FY 1997-98, implementing the salary
and benefit increases for the Chula Vista Employees Association, Western
Council of Engineers, and approving salary and benefit increases for the
unrepresented groups of Executive Managers, Unrepresented Employees
and Unclassified Part-Time Employees and appropriating funds from the
unappropriated balance of the General Fund for these increases and the
previously approved increases to salary and benefits for the Chula Vista
Police Officers Association
SUBMITTED BY: Budget Manage~
REVIEWED BY: City Managef (4/5ths Vote: Yes...xNo_)
Negotiating teams representing the City and Chula Vista Middle Managers Association,
(CVMMA) have reached agreement on a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) covering FY
1997-98. The proposed MOU was ratified by the CVMMA membership. The major changes
to the terms and conditions are outlined in this report. In addition, the City has also completed
negotiations with the Chula Vista Employees Association (CVEA), Western Council of
Engineers (WCE), went through a meet and confer process with the Chula Vista Police Officers
Association (CVPOA), and the City Council provided general direction for the unrepresented
groups of Executive Managers, Unrepresented Employees and Unclassified Part Time Employees
on salary and benefit increases. The cost of all recommended increases is proposed to be
appropriated from the unappropriated fund balance of the General Fund.
Item
Meeting Date 12/09/97
7
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolution approving the FY 1997-98
Memorandum of Understanding with CVMMA, implementing
salary and benefit increases for CVEA and WCE, and approve
salary and benefits increases for the unrepresented groups of
Executive Managers, Unrepresented Employees and Unclassified
Part Time Employees and appropriating funds from the
unappropriated fund balance of the General Fund for these
increases and for the previously approved salary and benefit
increases for CVPOA.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
?-- /
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date 12/09/97
Chula Vista Middle Mana~ers Association
The Chula Vista Middle Managers Association was officially formed and recognized by the City
in March of this year. As this is a new association, a new Memorandum of Understanding was
negotiated. The MOU tentatively agreed upon reflects only minor changes from the policies and
other terms of working conditions under which this group has worked.
The one-year MOU with CVMMA includes only a few changes from past practice. These
changes are:
1.
1.40 City Ri~hts
$
100
The City will provide each CVMMA member a copy of the FY 1997-98 MOU.
2.
2.10 Salaries
$177.542
The City will provide a salary increase of 3.36% retroactively to July 4, 1997. This
amount represents the gross amount that will need to be appropriated, however, this
will be offset by an increase in staffing reimbursements from other funds in an
amount of $22,370.'
3. ~ Safety Eauipment $ 700
The City will provide $100 towards the purchase of safety shoes for the classifications
of Open Space Coordinator, Building Services Superintendent, Supervising
Construction Specialist, Building Projects Supervisor, Public Works Maintenance
Superintendent, Sr. Parks Supervisor. These shoes will be replaced on an as needed
basis.
4. 2.45 Mileage Reimbursement $ 515
The City will reimburse employees who are required to use their personal vehicles for
authorized City business at the rate of 29c for the first 200 miles/month, 27c for the
next 300 miles and 25C over 500 miles per month.
5. 3.10 Employee Benefits/Professional Enrichment $ 3.000
The fund which has been established outside the flex plan for conference and training
shall be increased to $20,000, half of which will be available during the first half of
the fiscal year and the remaining half available the second half of the fiscal year.
Salary/Benefits Increases
$181,857
lThis is the first general salary increase for middle
managers in five years.
7-,2
Page 3, Item
Meeting Date 12/09/97
Chula Vista Police Officers Association
At the City Council meeting of October 7, 1997, the City's final offer to CVPOA was
unilaterally implemented. This offer included the following adjustments to salary and
benefits:
1. Retirement Offset $81.353
Increase in City pick-up of Employee's portion of PERS contribution from 2%
to 3%
2.
PERS Level IV Survivor's Benefit
$ 14.364
3.
POST Incentive Language Change
$ 3.100
Total Salary/Benefits
$98,817
Chula Vista Emoloyees Association
The Chula Vista Employees Association (CVEA) is in the fourth year of a four year
contract. A condition of this final year was a salary survey and implementation of a salary
increase based on the results of the survey. This survey was completed in October and the
increase based on the survey results is 3.36%. These funds now need to be appropriated.
The cost of the increase is estimated at $492,273. This is the gross amount that will need to
be appropriated; however, this is offset by an increase in staffing reimbursements from other
funds in an amount of $62,026.
Salary
$492,273
Western Council of Engineers
The Western Council of Engineers (WCE) MOU was also subject to a salary survey this
year. Their survey was to be based on similar groups of Engineers, or if there were no
similar groups, then they would use the same comparisons as CVEA. After review of the
survey information it was determined that the CVEA information was more appropriate and
that the 3.36% increase be granted to WCE. The cost of the increase for this group is
$49,822. This amount is also offset by increased staffing reimbursement of $6,278.
Salary
$ 49,822
Unrepresented (includin!! Secretary to Mayor/Council)
The application of the 3.36% salary increase to this group will cost $26,658. All of these
positions represent city overhead and therefore there is no staffing reimbursement. An
additional issue which is recommended to be included in the package for the Unrepresented
groups is the increase of the allowable flex plan contribution to the deferred compensation
plan from 25% to 30%. This percentage increase was implemented for the Middle
Management group for FY 95-96, but has not yet been offered to this group. The cost of this
change is based on the amount of flex plan balance returned to the general funds at the end
of the fiscal year. This amount is presumed to be reduced by a maximum of 5% or
7/3
Page 4, Item
Meeting Date 12/09/97
approximately $1,211, if every employee in this group were able to avail themselves of this
benefit.
Salary
Deferred Comp Percentage Increase
Total
$ 26,658
$ 1.211
$ 27,869
Executive Managers
The application of the 3.36% salary increase for the Executive Management group (including
the City Manager, City Attorney and City Clerk), if applied across the board would be
$99,029. This amount would be offset by an increase in the staffing reimbursement of
$12,477.
An additional issue which is recommended to be included in the package for Executives
Managers is the increase of the allowable flex plan contribution to the deferred compensation
plan from 25% to 30%. This percentage increase was implemented for the Middle
Management group for FY 95-96, but has not yet been offered to the Executives. The cost of
this changes is based on the amount of flex plan balance returned to the general funds at the
end of the fiscal year. This amount is presumed to be reduced by a maximum of 5% or
approximately $4,865, if every Executive were able to avail themselves of this benefit.
It is also recommended that the City Manager be given a "retention" pool of $5,000 which
can be used to help retain key department heads. It is suggested that these funds would assist
in retaining senior executives who have performed exceedingly well, consistently worked
beyond the level required in time commitment and who have achieved excellence in their
departments, bettering service levels for the benefit of Chula Vista citizens. The City has
lost two key Executives recently as a result of static salaries for an extended period of time
and came close to losing two others. This proposal would assist the City Manager in
retaining key personnel, especially when the main issue for leaving the organization is based
on level of compensation. In addition, these funds may prove helpful in recruitment and
attracting high quality individuals when executive level positions become vacant.
Locally, it may not be recognized how fortunate Chula Vista is to have the caliber of senior
executives that we have compared to other jurisdictions around the County and the State.
This is in part reflected in the superior service Chula Vista receives in many service level
areas. This is such an important recommendation that deletion of the 25-30% allowable flex
plan contribution to the deferred compensation plan ($4,865 -- described above) would be
preferable to deleting this "retention pool" recommendation.
Salary
Deferred Comp Percentage Increase
Senior executive retention fund
Total
$ 99,029
$ 4,865
$ 5.000
$108,894
?~i
Page 5, Item
Meeting Date 12/09/97
Unclassified Part-Time Employees
This group includes all hourly part-time employees. The largest number of hourly
employees work in the Library and the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Departments
providing services directly to the public. The addition of this salary increase for this group
will cost $62,815, which will be offset by revenue from increased staffing reimbursements of
$7,914.
Salary
$ 62,815
FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of this Memorandum of Understanding2 with CVMMA and
the other salary adjustments are within the guidelines established by City Council, including
expected resources needed to fund these adjustments. In order to amend the FY 1997-98
budget for the full cost of the salary and benefit increases, an additional appropriation of
$1,022,247 is needed. It is recommended that this appropriation be funded from the
unappropriated balance of the General Fund reserve. 3 This amount is estimated to be offset
by revenue for staffing cost reimbursements from other funds up to approximately $111 ,065.
~..II'lt\tJt:i~ll~ llllllllljllliU
CVMMA $181,757
POA $98,817
CVEA $492,273
WCE $49,822
UNREP $27,869
EXEC $108,894
UCPT $62,815
TOTAL $1,022,247
2The proposed CVMMA MOU is on file and available for public
review in the city Clerk's Office.
3This action was contemplated when Council considered the
1997-98 budget. This action will not prevent the City from
continuing to make progress towards meeting its General Fund
reserve guidelines of 8%.
7<~
Revised 12/8/97
Agenda Item No. 7
RESOLUTION NO. 18829
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING CONCERNING WAGES AND OTHER TERMS
AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT WITH THE CHULA
VISTA MIDDLE MANAGERS ASSOCIATION FOR FY 1997-
98, IMPLEMENTING THE SALARY AND BENEFIT
INCREASES FOR THE CHULA VISTA EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION, WESTERN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERS, AND
APPROVING SALARY AND BENEFIT INCREASES FOR THE
UNREPRESENTED GROUPS OF EXECUTIVE MANAGERS,
UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES AND UNCLASSIFIED PART-
TIME EMPLOYEES AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS FROM
THE UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE OF THE GENERAL FUND
FOR THESE INCREASES AND THE PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED INCREASES TO SALARY AND BENEFITS FOR
THE CHULA VISTA POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
WHEREAS, negotiating teams representing the City and
Chula vista Middle Managers Association (CVMMA) have reached
agreement on a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) covering FY 1997-
98 and have ratified a proposed MOU; and
WHEREAS, in addition, the City has also completed
negotiations with Chula Vista Police Officers Association (CVPOA),
Chula vista Employees Association (CVEA), Western Council of
Engineers (WCE) , and the unrepresented groups of Executive Managers
(including the City Manager, City Attorney and City Clerk),
Unrepresented Employees and Unclassified Part Time Employees on
salary and benefit increases; and
WHEREAS, the cost of all recommended increases is
proposed to be appropriated from the unappropriated fund balance of
the General Fund.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
City of Chula vista does hereby approve the Memorandum of
Understanding concerning wages and other terms and conditions of
employment with the Chula Vista Middle Managers Association for FY
1997-98.
implement
Employees
amount of
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the city Council does hereby
the salary and benefit increases for the Chula Vista
Association and Western Council of Engineers in the
3.36% retroactively to July 4, 1997.
approve
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the City Council does hereby
the salary and benefit increases for the Executive
1
i-Co
Managers, including the City Manager, City Attorney, and City Clerk
retroactively to July 4, 1997 in the amount of 3.36%.
BE IT FURTHER
Executive Management, as
hereby amended to reflect
RESOLVED that the Salary Bands for
set forth in Resolution No. 18572, are
the above-described increases in salary.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the city Council does hereby
approve a $5,000 Senior Executive Retention Fund to be used to
retain key department heads and shall be administered by the City
Manager.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the City Council does hereby
approve a salary and benefit increase for the Unrepresented Group
(including the Secretary to the Mayor and Council) and Unclassified
Part-Time Employees in the amount of 3.36% retroactively to July 4,
1997.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the allowable flex plan
contribution to the deferred compensation be increased from 25% to
30% for the Executive Managers, including the city Manager, City
Attorney and City Clerk and the Unrepresented Group.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the amount of $1,022,247 is
hereby appropriated from the unappropriated balance of the General
Fund reserve.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Dawn Herring, Budget Manager
C:\rs\budget.app
2
1-1
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
Meeting Date 12/09/97
g'
ITEM TITLE:
RESOLUTION /'ll'irJ.lIAccepting and Amending the Salary and Benefits
Increases for the Executive Director and Deputy Director of the California
Border Alliance Group (CBAG) and Appropriation of Funds from
Unanticipated Grant Revenue.
BACKGROUND:
Chief of POIiC~ 9.\lG. /CI ~
C'" M'"''':J Ct b tJEi \
(4/5ths Vote: Yes..x. No_l
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
On September 5, 1995, City Council approved the City of Chula Vista to act as the "fiscal agent"
for the California Border Alliance Group and act as conduit to obtain civilian support personnel and
to acquire related supplies for three employees. On July 16, 1996, City Council approved adding
two additional CBAG support personnel. This action provides for both executive level positions
tied to the federal pay schedule to receive a step increase within the prescribed federal General
Schedule pay by level and step (level 15, step 4 for Executive Director position and level 14, step
5 for the Deputy Director position) to be effective January, 1998, a net increase of 3.13%
(Attachment A). The proposed resolution would enable:
1. Chula Vista to pay federal government pay increases effective January 1, 1998 to the two
executive positions for the CBAG, Executive Director and Deputy Director (Attachment B).
These amendments would represent pass through costs from the City of Chula Vista to
these employees. The funding is from the San Diego Police Department Master Fiscal
Agent MOU.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the proposed resolution. The staff recommendation
will: 1) provide the City to be reimbursed for all expenses associated with the salary and benefits
increases for CBAG executive positions including a nominal processing cost reimbursement; 21
appropriate funds from unanticipated grant revenue and amend the Police Department's Grant
Fund budget to support these actions (Attachment C).
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The United States Attorney's Office - Southern District of California (USA), a division of the United
States Department of Justice (DOJI, had received federal funding to implement the California
Border Alliance Group (CBAG). The mission of CBAG is to develop multi-jurisdictional, cooperative
strategies to: al gather intelligence on drug traffickers; bl investigate drug trafficking activities;
c) arrest persons involved with illegal drug trafficking; d) to successfully prosecute those arrested.
CBAG is funded through a "High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area" (HIDT A) funding provision
contained in the Federal Appropriations Act for each federal year from 1988 through 1998; the
Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988; and, the National Drug Control Strategy of 1990. San Diego and
ff-J
Page 2, Item _
Meeting Date 12/09/97
Imperial Counties have been designated a HIDT A due to the volume of illegal narcotics entering
the United States through the international border.
The City of San Diego, through the Police Department, is the Master Fiscal Agent for all
participating state and local law enforcement agencies. The San Diego Police Department receives
an annual allocation of HIDTA funding each federal fiscal year. Participating agencies make
individual claims to obtain reimbursement for expenses related to their CBAG assigned personnel.
The resolution proposed by staff will amend the FY 97-98 budget to reflect reimbursement of all
expenses associated with the federal salary increases. The total reimbursement to the City will
include a processing fee payable to the City that will be calculated at 2% of total funds passed
through the City to CBAG. Approval of this resolution will reflect the actual federal allocation for
CBAG staff in the Police Department's FY 97-98 budget.
FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of the staff recommendation will result in the total appropriation of
$4,877. This figure represents $2.406 for the Director's position, and $2.471 for the Deputy
Director's position for six months to the end of the current fiscal year. Based On anticipated
expenses, net fiscal impact is + $95 in new revenue to the City. The Director and Deputy Director
of CBAG are not eligible for the wage increases recently received by City employees.
(dw) C:\wp51\scsla113s\cbagsaI.113 [December 3, 1997 (1:14pm)]
~/2
RESOLUTION NO.!W'-/-(
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING AND AMENDING THE SALARY
AND BENEFITS INCREASES FOR THE EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE CALIFORNIA
BORDER ALLIANCE GROUP (CBAG), AND APPROPRIA-
TION OF FUNDS FROM UNANTICIPATED GRANT REVENUE
WHEREAS, on September 5, 1995, the City Council approved
the city of Chula vista to act as the "fiscal agent" for the
California Border Alliance Group and act as conduit to obtain
civilian support personnel and to acquire related supplies for
three employees; and
WHEREAS, on July 16, 1996, the city Council approved
adding two additional CBAG support personnel; and
WHEREAS, this action provides for both executive level
positions tied to the federal pay schedule to receive a step
increase within the prescribed federal General Schedule pay by
level and step (level 15, step 4 for Executive Director position
and level 14, step 5 for the Deputy Director position) to be
effective January, 1998 (Attachment A); and
WHEREAS, staff recommends that Chula Vista pay federal
government pay increases effective January 1, 1998 to the two
executive positions for the CBAG Executive Director and Deputy
Director, which would represent pass through costs from the City of
Chula vista to these employees.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
city of Chula vista does hereby accept and amend the salary and
benefits increases as set forth in Exhibit "A" for the Executive
Director (level 15, step 4) and for the Deputy Director (level 14,
step 5) of the California Border Alliance Group (CBAG) effective
January 1, 1998.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby
appropriate $4,877 as set forth in Attachment "c" from the
unanticipated grant revenue and amend the Police Department's Grant
Fund budget to support these actions.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
(A--- YVl A9<~ ~
John M. Kaheny, city Attorney
Richard P. Emerson, Chief of
Police
C:\rs\cbag3
?r~3
ATTACHMENT A
..Localir/Rates of Pay for San Diego. CA
Pai.;lofl
.'
U.S. Office of Personnel Management
1998 General Schedule
Locality Rates of Pay for
San Diego, C4..
Effective January 1998
DRAFT
.~
,-.
Grade Annual Ratos for StoDI (In dollars)
I 2 3 " S 6 7 8 9 10
1 13 989 14.455 14.921 15..384 15851 16.124 16-'\81 . 17045 17 064 1 f.5O 1
1 15 718 16.101 16.614 17064 17.154 17762 18 169 18776 19 283 19.791
3 17.161 17,733 18..306 18 878 19.450 20 021 20.594 21166 21 738 2i3iO
4 19,165 19.907 10,s50 11192 21 834 22.476 13,119 23761 24 403 25 045
5 21.555 22.2.73 22 992 23711 14.430 15.149 15 868 26.587 17 306 18.014
6 24 025 14 826 15.627 16.428 27.219 28 030 28831 19 632 30 433 3l.U4
7 26.698 27.587 28.477 29,366 30.256 31.145 32.034 32.924 33813 34.703
8 29 568 30 553 31.539 32.524 33,510 34,495 35,481 36.466 37,451 38.437
9 32659 33.749 34.838 35.917 37016 38.105 39,194 40.283 41,372 42,461
10 35.966 37.165 38.364 39.563 40.762 41.962 43 161 44 360 45,559 46 759
11 39.516 40.833 42 149 43.466 44.783 46.100 47.417 48734 50.051 51368
12 47.360 48:g39 50~518 52 097 53 676 55.256 56.835 58.414 59.993 61,572
13 56,319 58.196 60.013 61.950 63 827 65 104 61.581 69 458 71 335 73,212
14 66.551 68.770 70.988 73.206 75.4.24 77.642 79.860 81,079 84,297 86.Sl5
15 78 283 80,893 83.503 86.113 88.723 91,333 93.943 96 553 99,163 101.773
. INCOlll'OllAtlNGTHE,~o"GEl'IEIVoLSClWlUUINCIll!.ASI"''<D ALOCAWY PAYMENT OF ,..... FOR THELOCAurv PAY ,o,UAor S.I.N
DlEGO. CA (NET J:t'IlCl\lASt; 3.1)'11)
To StJla7"V Ttzhle lrr.de%
To CamDe1'IJoli"n Aamini.Jtrarion Hamil Pan
. ToQPMHom,p(J~
. To WSb3ile Inti,:
to Downlodd in PDP" F017'lat
('
1016/97
5(-Y
2:07:35 PM
ATTACHMENT ncn
CBAG EXECUTIVE SALARY AND BENEFITS INCREASE
OBJECT COST -
ACCOUNT 6 MONTHS PROPOSED USE
5101 $2,017 CBAG Executive Director salary increase
5141 313 Increase in retirement contribution - 15.5%
5143 29 Increase Medicare contribution - 1.45 %
Subtotal 2,359 Increase in total compensation
47 2 % processing fee on increase
Total Cost Increase $2.406
CBAG EXECUTIVE SALARY & BENEFITS INCREASE
OBJECT COST -
ACCOUNT 6 MONTHS PROPOSED USE
5101 $2,072 CBAG Deputy Director salary increase
5141 321 Increase in retirement contribution - 15.5%
5143 30 Increase in Medicare contribution - 1.45%
Subtotal 2,423 Increase in total compensation
48 2 % processing fee on increase
Total Cost Increase $2,471
8/1
ATTACHMENT B
California Border Alliance Group
Southwest Border High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area
225 Broadway, Suite 810, San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 619-557-5324, FAX: 619-557-6450
November 24, 1997
To:
Dan Wolf
Captain,
CVPD
From:
Ron Papania
CBAG
RE:
Executive Director & Deputy Director Step and COLA
Attached are the copies you requested.
Sorry I missed your call. I was out sick.
As I indicated on the phone, the budget proposals are put together in the April to June time frame and submitted
in July as the best estimate. We can adjust within the total grant.
Any questions, please call me on 557-5324, ex!. 14.
?/3
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item~
Meeting Date 12/09/97
SUBMITTED BY:
RESOLUTION /'3'~J(AccePting $14,583 from South Bay Community
Services (SBCS) and Appropriating such Funds for Overtime Necessary to
Implement the Domestic Violence Component of the Community
Assessment Grant.
Chief of Police V / rll\
City Manage0~ ,~~ J
(4/5ths Vote: Yes..x.. No_)
ITEM TITLE:
REVIEWED BY:
South Bay Community Services (SBCS), in partnership with the Police Department, was awarded
a grant to form a Family Violence Response Team. This grant provides a creative program for
gaining early access to families with children in which domestic violence is present. The grant
reimburses the Police Department for overtime expenses associated with domestic violence cases.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council accept $14,583 from South Bay Community Services and
appropriate such funds for patrol overtime associated with the Domestic Violence component of
the Community Assessment Grant.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
The Chula Vista Police Department has worked in partnership with South Bay Community Services
(SBCS) on many projects related to youth and family services. Recently, South Bay Community
Services began studying domestic violence in the City of Chula Vista. Their research found Chula
Vista has the fourth largest per capita reported incidents of any jurisdiction of San Diego County.
In 1992, reported incidents rose by 47% compared to 29% county wide. During a period from
1988 to 1992, Chula Vista had the second highest increase in incidents (93%1 behind only the
City of San Diego (123%). During the period from 1 991 to 1995, the increase in domestic
violence reports slowed but still increased by 29 %. The reason for the high number of reported
incidents is unknown at this time.
DISCUSSION:
Based on the statistics and research above, South Bay Community Services successfully applied
for a Family Violence Response grant to address issues of violence in the home. The grant involves
a team response to reports of domestic violence in homes where children are present. The team
consists of South Bay Community Services, Chula Vista Police Department and the Department
of Social Services Children's Services Bureau. Each partner involved in this grant has specific
responsibilities. The Department of Social Services will provide training, on-going case
consultation and follow-up investigation on child abuse reports. The Police Department's
responsibility is to activate the system when they respond to domestic violence calls and children
9/ I
Page 2, Item _
Meeting Date 11/24/97
are present. The officers will also stand by to assure the safety of the assessment worker when
necessary. The bulk of the responsibility in this grant belongs to South Bay Community Services.
South Bay Community Services will respond seven days a week, 24 hours a day to domestic
violence calls when children are present. They will do assessments in the home, make referrals
as necessary, do follow-up within 24 hours and assist with necessary on-going follow-up services.
This grant authorizes payment of $25,000 per year of the grant for police services. This payment
is designed to off-set the impact of officers having to stay at calls for extended periods of time,
training necessary to keep officers current on abuse and domestic violence issues and any
overtime that may be incurred as a result of extended time spent at domestic violence calls for
service.
During the period from September, 1995, to August, 1996, there was roughly 2,378 domestic
violence calls for service in Chula Vista. Over two-thirds of the calls occurred during non-
traditional work hours. For example between 6 pm to 9 am, Monday through Friday, or on
Saturdays and Sundays. The balance occurred during traditional working hours. The most
disturbing statistic indicated approximately 67% of the domestic violence calls occurred in homes
where there were children. These statistics illustrated a clear need for personnel to respond to
domestic violence reported incidents on a 7 day a week, 24 hours a day basis.
The Community Assessment Grant is a three year grant with subsequent funding subject to
Federal budget deliberations at the conclusion of the grant. The payment to Chula Vista Police
Department for the first year of the grant is $14,581. This is based on $2,083 per month. The
$14,581 is reflective of seven months of participation for FY 97-98. The payment of $2,083 will
continue until April, 2000. A total of $25,000 will be received annually.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Acceptance of the $14,581 this year and $25,000 the following two years from South Bay
Community Services for the three year project duration has no impact on the general fund. The
acceptance of these funds will off-set and reimburse 100% of associated costs related to
domestic violence.
Idh) C:\wp51\scs\a113s\domestic.l 13 [December 2, 1997 (2:31pm)]
9-;2.,
RESOLUTION NO. (~~~
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING $14,583 FROM SOUTH BAY
COMMUNITY SERVICES (SBCS) AND APPROPRIATING
SUCH FUNDS FOR OVERTIME NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT
THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COMPONENT OF THE
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT GRANT
WHEREAS, South Bay Community
partnership with the Police Department, was
a Family Violence Response Team; and
Services (SBCS) , in
awarded a grant to form
WHEREAS, this grant provides a creative program for
gaining early access to families with children in which domestic
violence is present; and
WHEREAS, the grant reimburses the Police Department for
overtime expenses associated with domestic violence cases.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
City of Chula vista does hereby accept $14,583 from the South Bay
Community Services and appropriating such funds for overtime
necessary to implement the Domestic Violence Component of the
Community Assessment Grant.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
ney
Richard P. Emerson, Chief of
Police
C:\rs\grant.sbc
9--3
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
REVIEWED BY:
Item / tJ
Meeting Date 12/09/97
RESOLUTION jgtg' ~OriZing the Transfer (Reprogramming) of 1 996
AB 3229 Supplemental Local Law Enforcement Funds in the Amount of
$33,569 for Purchase of a CAD Dispatch Component to Service Animal
Control ($18,5691 and Development of Map Books ($15,000) for Public
Safety.
Chief of POIi~ ~p(.. / (\A
City Manager-J6 ro ~rJ
14/Sths Vote: Yes..x. No_I
ITEM TITLE:
SUBMITTED BY:
During FY 1996/97, Council accepted and appropriated 1996 AB 3229 Supplemental Local Law
Enforcement funds in the amount of $356,408 for payment of personnel, overtime, and purchase
of equipment. All of the programs with exception of two (purchase of a firewall' and purchase
of auto ticket writers2) have been implemented or are in progress. Staff is recommending that
the funds set aside for purchase of the firewall and auto ticket writers be reprogrammed for
purposes of purchasing a computer aided dispatching component and map books for public safety.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the transfer of $33,569 originally allocated for
purchase of a firewall and auto ticket writers.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The state appropriation requires a regional
oversight committee's approval of the funds prior to disbursement. In response, an oversight
committee was established in San Diego County. The committee recommends approval of the
state Local Law Enforcement funds as proposed. The San Diego County oversight committee is
comprised as follows:
Municipal Police Chief -
County Sheriff -
District Attorney -
County Administrative Office -
City Manager -
BACKGROUND:
Richard P. Emerson
William Kolender
Paul Pfingst
Lawrence Prior III
James Bowersox, Poway
During the FY 96/97 the state appropriated funds for local law enforcement services per AB 3229,
Chapter 134 statutes of 1996. In accordance with this legislation, Council appropriated such
IF;rewall - electronic device that prohibits access to non-authorized users.
2 Auto ticket writer ~ machine that automatically prints citation information and logs the citation
information into the court system.
J{)-/
Page 2, Item _
Meeting Date 12/09/97
funds for front line law enforcement personnel and equipment needs. As part of this action, funds
were designated for the purchase of a firewall ($10,000) and auto ticket writers ($23,569).
DISCUSSION:
The Police Department recommends that Council reprogram the funds designated for purchase of
a firewall and auto ticket writers as follows:
. Computer Automated Dispatch/Mobile Data Computer dispatching for animal control -
$18,569 The Police Department is recommending reprogramming of funds for the firewall
and auto ticket writers for purchase of a CAD/MDC component to dispatch for animal
control services. Purchase of the firewall is no longer necessary since the CAD/MDC
project (PS115) provides for adequate security measures to prevent access to Police files.
As a result staff is recommending reprogramming of these funds for purchase of a
component which would provide for dispatching services to animal control under the new
CAD/MDC system. Purchase of this component will enhance the department's ability to
track calls and response times and maintain a records management system for animal
control. The total cost is anticipated to be approximately $24,000. The difference will be
paid from the logging recorder savings in PS115.
. Map books for public safety - $15,000 The department is currently in need of map books
for public safety personnel. The existing map books are nearly illegible even when viewed
in good light. Development and purchase of map books for public safety personnel is
critical and needs to be addressed as soon as possible. As a result, staff is recommending
that the original appropriation designated for auto ticket writers be reprogrammed for a
more immediate need, developing map books for public safety personnel. In the interim,
the Police Department will continue to look for other available grant funds for the purposes
of purchasing auto ticket writers in the future.
The $15,000 will pay for a temporary hourly employee for four months to customize and
produce the new map grids which are compatible with CAD. Customization will include
identification of fire hydrants, addresses, and street names. When this work is complete,
the City will be able to produce high quality map books in-house which will be able to
produce high quality map books in-house which will use the City's current GIS system and
be maintained by public safety personnel. These maps will develop as the City rapidly
grows over the next several years. GIS does not have the staff to produce these maps.
The use of Thomas Brothers maps is cost prohibitive and are only updated yearly.
Accurate maps are a necessity for efficient responses to public safety emergencies.
FISCAL IMPACT: There is no negative impact to the General Fund as a result of reprogramming
the funds for animal control dispatching and public safety map books. The reprogrammed funds
will be $10,000 transferred from the FY 96 AB 3229 appropriation (account 100-1086-5560) to
PS115, and $23,569 from FY 96 AB 3229 appropriation (account 100-1088-5567 to account
100-1088-5105) for a total of $33,569. The use of the $33,569 is proposed as a one time
expenditure.
Attachment: Council Agenda Statement dated, 10/01/96 NOT SCANNED
/t1 - c2-
RESOLUTION NO. /g!S:<~
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER
(REPROGRAMMING) OF 1996 AB 3229 SUPPLEMENTAL
LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF
$33,569 FOR PURCHASE OF A CAD DISPATCH
COMPONENT TO SERVICE ANIMAL CONTROL ($18,569)
AND DEVELOPMENT OF MAP BOOKS ($15,000) FOR
PUBLIC SAFETY
WHEREAS, during FY 1996/97, Council accepted and
appropriated 1996 AB 3229 Supplemental Local Law Enforcement funds
in the amount of $356,408 for payment of personnel, overtime, and
purchase of equipment; and
WHEREAS, all of the programs with the exception of two
(purchase of a firewall and purchase of auto ticket writers) have
been implemented or are in progress; and
WHEREAS, staff is recommending that the funds set aside
for purchase of the firewall and auto ticket writers be
reprogrammed for purposes of purchasing a computer aid dispatching
component and map books for public safety; and
WHEREAS,
$33,569 originally
ticket writers.
it is necessary to approve the transfer of
allocated for purchase of a firewall and auto
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
city of Chula vista does hereby authorize the transfer
(reprogramming) of 1996 AB 3229 Supplemental Local Law Enforcement
Funds in the amount of $33,569 for Purchase of a CAD Dispatch
Component to Service Animal Control ($18,569) and development of
Map Books ($15,000) for Public Safety.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Richard P. Emerson, Chief of
Police
(j "-_ '/Jll~J^-Q- ~~
John M. Kaheny, Clty Attorney
C:\rs\cadxfer
JtJ~ J
ATTACHMENT
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM
//
MEETING DATE
10/1/96
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing to notice use of COPS Funding
per AB 3229 Citizens Option for Public
Safety for Local Law Enforcement Services
Resolution /8"-77~ccePting $356,408 for Local
Law Enforcement from the state budget to pay
for police personnel and related equipment to
be identified
SUBMITTED BY:
," ,/
Chief of police~~c
City Managerf~:)\;
(4/5THS VOTE: YES~ NO_
REVIEWED BY:
During the 1996-97 budget process, Council authorized the Police
Department to pursue funding for Community Oriented policing
projects. The state budget was adopted appropriating $356,408 to
the City of Chula Vista as a result of Assembly Bill 3229, Brulte.
This bill allocates state money to police departments for purposes
stipulated by the Citizens Option for Public Safety (COPS) Program.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Council hold a public hearing to notice use of COPS funding to
pay for "front line police services" and adopt a Resolution
accepting $356,408 from the state budget. (This action does not put
the City at risk or obligate it to accept the funds.)
BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The state appropriation requires
a Regional Oversight Committee's approval of the funds prior to
disbursement. In response, an Oversight Committee was established
in San Diego County. The Committee recommends approval of the
state local law enforcement funds as proposed. The San Diego
County Oversight Committee is comprised as follows:
1) One municipal Police Chief - Rick Emerson, CVPD
2) The County Sheriff - B. Kolender
3) The District Attorney - P. Pfingst
4) The County's Administrative Officer - Lawrence Prior, III
5) One City Manager - J. Bowersox, poway
y/r> fj-i"
PAGE 2, ITEM
MEETING DATE 10/1/96
, ,
/ ,I
BACKGROUND:
The California Legislature, with support of Governor Wilson,
enacted AB 3229 (Chapter 134) into law during the 1996 legislature
and state budget session. The legislation allocated $100 million
statewide to local Police Departments, County Sheriffs and District
Attorneys. Of this money, $75 million was divided among patrol-
responsible law enforcement agencies, $12.5 million was distributed
equally to Sheriffs for county construction and operation and the
remaining $12.5 million was divided among all District Attorneys in
the state for criminal prosecution. The funds for local law
enforcement were divided on a $2.30 per capita basis. Based on
this formula, Chula Vista was allocated $356,408 to fund "front
line police services."
DISCUSSION:
As part of the Police Department's on-going effort to obtain COPS
funding and minimize the cost of police services to the General
fund four grant programs (including AB 3229) will be forwarded to
Council for consideration on October 8, 1996. A summary of these
programs (AB 3229, COPS Universal Hiring, Domestic Violence and the
Federal Local Law Enforcement Block Grant) is attached to serve as
a reference point in reviewing these agenda statements. In brief,
together these programs provide $1.2 M in new funds for
supplemental local law enforcement services. The funds are to be
used to supplement and not supplant. Some of the grant monies
require a local match and have future fiscal implications to the
General fund. Staff will address these issues in the Agenda
statements to be forwarded to Council on October 8, 1996.
AB 3229 - Citizens Option for Public safety is one of four grant
programs to be forwarded to Council for consideration on October 8,
1996. However, in order to be eligible for funding, AB 3229 -
Citizens Option for Public Safety stipulates that 1) a public
hearing be held in September noticing the intent to use these funds
for local law enforcement services; and 2) that a plan for the use
of the funds be approved by Council within 60 days of the public
hearing. The police department was advised of this requirement in
late September and was unable to meet the public hearing notice
requirements. As a result, this public hearing is scheduled for
this meeting. Staff does not anticipate any appropriation problems
as a result of this action.
# j[/r;
PAGE 3,
ITEM
, '
,- / j'
/L /' ~ l (
II
/ '
MEETING DATE
As mentioned above, the agenda item with staff's recommendation for
specific USe of the funds will be forwarded to Council on October
8, 1996. This will provide Council with the opportunity to review
USe of these funds in the context of all grant opportunities
available at this time. In the interim, the police department
recommends that the City Council accept the state allocation and
approve, in concept, potential USe of the funds for personnel and
equipment costs related to the expansion of the "front line police
services. " Staff will describe the short and long term
implications of proposed personnel or equipment purchases to be
funded by this appropriation in the agenda items to be forwarded.
In the event, Council chooses not to accept staff's recommendation
for use of these funds, Council is under no obligation to accept
the State appropriation per AB 3229.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Acceptance of the funds would make $356,408 available for local law
enforcement needs. The funds have a 25% in-kind contribution
requirement; thus, no impact to the General Fund. However, the
funds must be used to supplement local law enforcement not
supplant. Reoccurring costs to the City would depend on the use of
the funds. Fiscal implications will be described in agenda items
to be forwarded to Council.
ATTACHMENT 1 - Summary of New Grant Opportunities
~ /fi/~
ATTACHMENT 1
SUMMARY OF NEW POLICE GRANT FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES
Grant Title Amount Local Status Recommended Use
Match of Funds
AB 3229 - Citizens $356,408 In-kind To be $122,364 to offset
Option for Public Services disbursed local match for 6
Safety (State Budget October 1996 officers under
Appropriation) Universal Hiring
Grant; $10,000 for
Upgrade of Agt. to
Sgt for Domestic
Violence Grant
$184,044 for
equipment; &
$50,000 for
services.
Universal Hiring $450,000 Spreadsheet Disbursement Pay for 6 Officers
Grant - Pays partial over three Attached of A ward
salaries & benefits years Pending
for 6 new officers
over three years.
Domestic Violence $150,000 $30,000 in- A warded; Pay for one
Grant - Pays for one to renewed kind funds may be Sergeant, one
Agent, one Admin. annually services drawn pending Admin. Office
Office Asst Ill, and for three Council's Assist. III, and
$30,000 in years Approval contractual services
contractual services with Children's
with Children's Hospital
Hospital for Family
Protection Services
(Federal) Local Law $257,401 10 % local A ward & Pay $94,618 for
Enforcement Block match disbursement one Animal control
Grant - Pays for ($25,741) of funds Officer, .5 Crime
personnel, overtime, pending Prevention
equipment, enhanced Council's Specialist; .5 Grant
security measures. Approval Writer; $10,000 for
A ward based on overtime; $95,783
Crime Rate and equipment and
distributed on a per $57,000 in security
capita basis. measures.
~ /0')
ATTACHMENT 1 CONTINUED
UNIVERSAL HIRING PROGRAM COST.
The COPS Universal Hiring Program authorizes funding under the Crime Bill for six additional
police officers for Chula Vista. Up to a maximum of $75,000 per officer is provided over a
three year period. The grant offsets approximately 57%, 50% and 36% of the City's salary and
benefit costs per position for the three-year funding period. On the fourth year, the City would
pay the full cost associated with each position added. The following is a breakdown of the cost
of adding new police officers.
The cost for adding one new officer under the COPS Universal Hiring Grant Program is as
follows:
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total - 3 Yr.
Federal Share $27,033 (57%) $26,662 (50%) $21,248 (36%) $ 74,943
City Share 20,394 (43%) 26,661 (50%) 37,773 (64%) $ 84,828
Total $47,427 $53,323 $59,021 $159,771
The personnel cost for adding six new officers is as follows:
Source Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total - 3Yr
Federal Share $162,198 $159,972 $127,488 $449,658
City Share2 122,364 159,966 226,638 $508,968
Total $284,562 $319,938 $354,126 $958,626
2The City's share is to be offset by COPS funding per AB 3229 -
Citizens Option for Public Safety.
~ /?7/g/
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM /rb~ C; 7)
Meeting Date: 10/22/96
ITEM TITLE:
Is. Resolution J.?"Vt.s<.:.mending the FY 1996-97 budget to add 6 FTE
Police Officers and Accepting $450,000 over three years from the. COPS
Universal Hiring Grant and Appropriating $162,198 of such funds for
hiring 6 additional Police Officers in FY 1996-97 and directing staff to
budget the remaining funds as stipulated by the grant in subsequent years.
~:. Resolution/frY?; Appropriating (I) $122,364 from Fund 214
Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund (SLESF) AB 3229,
Citizens Option for Public Safety for paying for the six officers added
under the Universal Hiring Grant, (2) $184,044 for equipment
procurement, and (3) $50,000 for local law enforcement services.
p, Resolution /6"1-/7tIDesignating revenues generated by assignment of
police officers to certain specialty assignments for payment of future
Universal Hiring officer salaries & benefits.
SUBMITTED BY:
Chief of po~
City Manager ff
(4/5ths VOTE: Yes..x.. No_)
REVIEWED BY:
During the FY 96-97 Budget process Council was apprised of a $450,000 allocation to the City
under the COPS Universal Hiring Grant. The Police Department's initial thoughts on the
potential use of the funds were forwarded to Council in a Budget Supplemental Report
(Attachment I). Council directed staff to look for alternative funding or revenue generating
opportunities to offset the General Fund local match requirement under the COPS Universal
Hiring Grant.
Following Council's action, the state budget appropriated $356,408 to the City as a result of
Assembly Bill 3229, Brulte. Police staff recommends use of these funds to offset the local
match requirement under the Universal Hiring Grant. As Council may recall, this bill allocated
state money to police departments for purposes stipulated by the Citizens Option for Public
Safety (COPS) Program. A public hearing was held on October I, 1996, as required by the
legislation, to accept these funds for police personnel and related equipment to be identified
(Attachment 2). This agenda statement proposes to use funds from the state budget
appropriation, AB 3229 (Fund 214) for personnel ($122,364), equipment ($184,044) and local
law enforcement services ($50,000).
!J;.{v-r> 1/-7
Page 2 ITEM
Meeting Date: 10/22/96
RECOMMENDATION:
That Council:
I) Amend the FY 96-97 budget adding six officers to enhance community policing efforts
under the Universal Hiring Grant: and Appropriate funds from the Universat" Hiring
Grant and AB 3229 - Citizens Option for Public Safety to pay for the six officers.
2) That Council appropriate funds from the Citizens Option for Public Safety for
procurement of local law enforcement equipment ($184,044) and services ($50,000).
3) Designate revenues generated from the Universal Hiring police officer positions for
payment of future officer salaries and benefits associated with this program.
BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: N/A
BACKGROUND:
COPS Universal Hirine: Grant - The most visible component of the Crime Bill is the Community
Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Program. The COPS Program authorizes the United States
Department of Justice (DOJ), under the direction of the United States Attorney General, to
provide funding to local governments for additional sworn law enforcement officers. Four
officers were added to the Police Department and funded by the Crime Bill (COPS AHEAD)
in FY 95-96. Based on that grant submittal, the DOJ developed the COPS Universal Hiring
Program to deploy additional new officers devoted to community policing. In May 1996, DOJ
announced that the City of Chula Vista was eligible to receive $450,000 for six new officers
under the Universal Hiring Grant Program. A Budget Supplemental Report, with the Police
Department's initial thoughts on the potential use of funds, was forwarded to Council during the
FY 96-97 budget process.
State Budget Appropriation (AB 3229) - The California Legislature and the Governor enacted
AB 3229 (Chapter 134) into law during the 1996 legislature and state budget session. the
legislation allocated $100 million statewide to local Police Departments, County sheriffs and
District Attorneys. Of this money, $75 million was divided among patrol-responsible law
enforcement agencies, $12.5 million was distributed equally to Sheriffs for county construction
and operation and the remaining $12.5 million was divided among all district Attorneys in the
state for criminal prosecution. The funds for local law enforcement were divided on a $2.30
per capita basis. Chula Vista was allocated $356,408 to fund "front line police services."
/~/o//o
Page 3 ITEM_
Meeting Date: 10/22/96
DISCUSSION:
During the budget process, the Police Department presented Council with preliminary thoughts
on hiring six new officers under the Universal Hiring Grant. The Police Department proposes'
to use the state appropriation; AB 3229 - Citizens Option for Public Safety to add the six police
officers to patrol with no impact to the general fund.
UNIVERSAL HIRING PROGRAM COST
The COPS Universal Hiring Program authorizes funding under the Crime Bill for six additional
police officers for Chula Vista. Up to a maximum of $75,000 per officer is provided over a
three year period. The grant offsets approximately 57%, 50% and 36% of the City's salary and
benefit costs per position for the three-year funding period. On the fourth year, the City would
pay the full cost associated with each position added. The following is a breakdown of the cost
of adding new police officers. The cost for adding one new officer under the COPS Universal
Hiring Grant Program is as follows:
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total - 3 Yr.
Federal Share $27,033 (57%) $26,662 (50%) $21,248 (36%) $ 74,943
City Share! 20,394 (43%) 26,661 (50%) 37,773 (64%) $ 84,828
Total $47,427 $53,323 $59,021 $159,771
The personnel cost for adding six new officers is as follows:
Source Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total - 3Yr
Federal Share $162,198 $159,972 $127,488 $449,658
City Share2 122,364 159,966 226,638 $508,968
Total $284,562 $319,938 $354,126 $958,626
For the first year, the police department proposes that $122,364 from the State budget
appropriation (AB 3229) of $356,408 be used as the City's share. The annual appropriation of
these funds will be subject to the annual State budget deliberations.
!The "City Share" is proposed to be paid from the State budget
appropriation, AB 3229 - Citizens Option for Public Safety.
2See footnote 1
/.//,~
;~ ~-'
![J-)/
PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT
Page 4 ITEM_
Meeting Date: 10/22/96
The additional six officers will be added to patrol. These officers will be paid from the COPS
Universal Hiring Grant and the State budget appropriation per AB 3229. Six existing officers
(currently paid from the general fund) with the level of experience required will be assigned to
the following specialty assignments as a result of this grant program. There are no additional
costs to the general fund as a result of these assignments. Moreover, the following position
assignments will contribute to the departments on-going efforts to reduce police response times
and meet Growth Management Oversight committee (GMOC) thresholds. The specific
assignments are as follows:
One Officer would be added to the Narcotics Task Force (NTF). The Police Department
currently has one officer assigned to NTF. This position's costs are offset by funds received
as a result of asset sharing. The City receives I. 75 % of countywide asset seizures based on
one officer with the NTF. A total of $61,743 was received as a result of the existing position's
participation in NTF in FY 95-96. Adding a second position would generate an additional
I. 25 % of countywide asset seizure funds annually . We estimate this position will generate
$45,000 in new on-going revenue to be specifically designated to offset the future cost of salaries
and benefits associated with positions added under the COPS Universal Hiring Grant. These
funds will be used in the event the three year Universal Hiring Grant expires or the State budget
appropriation is eliminated. In the event both funding sources are available during the three year
grant period an estimated $135,000 ($45,000 x 3 yrs) in revenue generated by this position
would be available to offset costs associated with this position and other positions added under
this grant proposal. The $45,000 annually in revenue will continue to be an on-going revenue
source for this program.
Two Officers would be added as School Resource Officers (SRO). The Police Department
currently has a total of seven SRO's (four at the high school and three at the elementary level).
SRO's are uniformed officers assigned full time to local high schools or elementary schools to
perform patrol enforcement functions on campus. They are responsible for documenting crime
incidents at campuses and making necessary arrests. During calendar year 1995, 246 arrests
were made by SRO's. In addition to their role as enforcers of the law, SRO's are attentive to
student and campus personnel, follow-up with truant students. facilitate parent/teacher/student
meetings for students with behavioral problems, and serve as mentors and role models.
The elementary school district currently has three officers assigned. The elementary school
district currently reimburses the city for the cost of one SRO. Two additional SRO positions
have been requested. The Police Department concurs that a need exists for two additional SRO
positions at the elementary level. Consistent with the existing practice, the Elementary School
District has indicated that they are willing to reimburse the City for the cost of one position. As
a result, the Police Department recommends the two Elementary School District SRO positions
be authorized contingent on the elementary school district paying for one position. The $65.000
in revenue to be generated from this proposal would be designated toward payment of future
costs associated with these positions after the grant expires.
~/ )tJ~/~
Page 5 ITEM_
Meeting Date: 10/22/96
One Officer would be hired to enhance business policing efforts. Consistent with our
community policing efforts, the department would propose to add an officer to work directly
with the business community to promote compliance, streamline the special event process, and
educate the business community on crime prevention measures. For example. this position
would work closely with the Amphitheater (MCA) to make sure all security, traffic con\rol and
law enforcement activities related to the Amphitheater are to the satisfaction of the Chief of
Police. The staff time spent on MCA activities will be reimbursed.
In addition, to special event policing, this position will liaison with the business community to
facilitate their needs, promote compliance with City ordinances and implement crime prevention
measures. For example, this position would facilitate on-going fraud training to the North Island
Credit Union (NIFCU). This training was recently provided and helped reduce NIFCU's actual
check fraud losses by $126,000 and the number of fraud cases by 50%. In addition NIFCU,
documented that they avoided $300,000 in losses during the past 12 months through early
detection as a result of the fraud training received by the Police Department.
Two Officers would be added to form the street team to enhance Community Policing
efforts. The Police Department has made proactive policing a priority. Our approach has been
that it is more effective to prevent crime before it occurs. The Street Team was implemented
in FY 1993-94 to help reduce street level crime like robberies and deter drug dealing. The Street
Team is a proactive enforcement unit providing resolution strategies to crime problems identified
by crime analysis, patrol and investigative personnel. Through citizen contacts, team members
stay informed about crime problems identified by residents and business owners in the
community.
The Street Team would continue to focus on community outreach and increasing the use of
Problem Oriented Policing (POP) projects to pro-actively problem solve at specific locations in
Chula Vista. Current Street Team members participated in several POP projects during the
year. By focusing on identified problem areas within the City, including shopping centers and
swap meets, the team had a direct impact on reducing auto theft, violent crime and burglary.
By using the Street Team approach, the Police Department will continue to serve as a catalyst
to bring together appropriate resources to address specific community safety problems and
prevent crime before it occurs. This is another way of adapting to challenges facing a
community that continues to grow.
EQUIPMENT & SERVICE PROCUREMENT
After paying for the previously mentioned local match requirement, $199,569 from AB 3229 -
Citizens Option for Public Safety remains available for local law enforcement equipment and
services. The Police department recommends these funds be appropriated as described on the
next page: $126,000 in equipment, $23,569 minor CIP, and $50,000 for police related services.
~ JtJ-)3
Page 6 ITEM_
Meeting Date: 10/22/96
EOUIPMENT - $126.000
Patrol Vehicles & Officer Associated Equipment (Radio, MDT, etc.) The Police
Department would propose to purchase three patrol vehicles at a cost of ($21,258 each) plus
related equipment ($12,669 each), and outfitting costs ($2,740 each) for a total of $110,000 for
use by the six new officers. Related equipment costs include: the Code 3 MX7000 Lightbar,
Flashlight charger, Shotgun Lock timer, Mount & Lock, Unitrol Touchmaster Siren & Lightbar
Control, Siren Speaker, Headlight Wigwag, Troy Console, Setina S-8 Prisoner Screen, Decals,
Prisoner Cage Extension, RadiolPA Microphone, Motorola Radio Hi-band, Mobile Data
Terminal, etc. The department recommends $110,000 be appropriated for this purpose from
funding per AB 3229 - Citizens Option for Public Safety.
K-9 dog and related equipment ($6,000). The Police Department K-9 program is currently
short two dogs and anticipates a third dog is near retirement. Past fiscal constraints have made
it difficult to maintain full K-9 staffing. One dog is authorized to be purchased this year, as a
result the department will be one dog short and two short after the upcoming retirement. Based
on the upcoming retirement, the Police department would propose that a dog be purchased from
this grant.
Purchase of a Firewall ($10,000) to protect police records. A firewall is a device (smaller than
the CPU of a PC) that connects to the front of a network, to prevent unauthorized access to
files. The Police Department is in the process of hooking up to the citywide network.
Management Information Services has recommended the purchase of a firewall to protect police
records and confidential information.
MINOR CIP - $23.569
Automated Traffic Ticketing ($ 23.569) - The Police Department is exploring the possibility
of automating traffic ticketing for moving and parking violations. Additional staff work is
needed prior to proceeding with this project and making a final staff recommendation. For
example, police staff is working with South Bay Municipal Court to identify State monies to
cover 50 % of the equipment and transition costs and Finance staff to determine if the use of
parking meter funds is appropriate. The department recommends earmarking these funds for
the purpose of purchasing automated traffic ticketing equipment to be used by the Police
Department and Parking Meter staff. Staff will return to Council at a later date with a detailed
report on this project including available funding.
SERVICES - $50,000
Community Outreach ($25,000). The Police Department recommends funds be appropriated
to support Community Policing services provided by various groups (SVPP, CAST, Explorers,
School Patrol, Reserves, PAL and Volunteers) under the umbrella of the Police Department.
These groups help enhance the Community Policing efforts.
/~ J!'l-JLj'
Page 7 ITEM_
Meeting Date: 10/22/96
Training & Strategic Planning ($25,000). In light of a growing community, training and
strategic planning are vital. Additionally, the Growth Management Committee (GMOC) has
recommended the Police Department develop a strategic plan to manage future growth and meet
GMOC thresholds. The Police Department recommends funds be earmarked for this purpose.
FISCAL IMPACT
Year 1 - The personnel costs of the six officers would be paid for from funding the State
appropriation per AB 3229, Citizens Option for Public Safety and the COPS Universal Hiring
Grant. Approval of Staff's recommendation would generate $45,000 from the officer position
to be assigned to the Narcotics Task Force (NTF) and a minimum of $65,000 from the School
Resource Position (SRO) to be assigned to the elementary school district. In addition, to an
unknown amount of revenue from the Amphitheater. Automotive equipment purchased from this
grant will be placed on the replacement schedule when placed in service. There will be
approximately $12,800 in recurring maintenance costs for the three patrol vehicles and the one
undercover vehicle added to the general fund in year 2. There are no recurring service costs
proposed.
Years 2 & 3 - Assuming continuance of the State appropriation (AB 3229), no net impact to the
General Fund and revenue generation of $110,000 annually as described earlier. After Year 3,
the cost of the six officers, will be offset by the revenue generated by the NTF, and SRO
positions and possible continued State funding. The state appropriation is subject to the state
budget annual deliberations. In the event the State funding is eliminated the net cost to the
General Fund is $159,966 for year two and $226,638 for year three.
LONG-TERM IMPLICATIONS
These positions will be paid for through year three by the combination of the COPS Universal
Hiring Grant and the State budget appropriation (AB 3229) discussed in this agenda statement.
Additionally revenue generated by these positions will be collected and earmarked to pay for the
fourth year. It is estimated that $110,000 will be collected annually from the revenue generating
positions discussed in this agenda statement. Based on this assumption, at the end of three
years, $330,000 would be available to offset $354,126 in annual salary and benefits associated
with the proposed six positions. The city will incur $24,126 in the fourth year (FY 2000-2001).
The City will start incurring the full cost of the proposed positions minus on-going revenue of
$110,000 in the fifth year (FY 2001-2002). The on-going cost to the City starting the fifth year
is estimated to be $254,126. This cost does not include any future salary or benefit increases.
Attachments: 1) Budget Supplemental Report
2) AB 3229 - Citizens Option for Public Safety A 113
3) Budget Detail (Spreadsheet)
~ /tJ-~5
.:ov........___.___,......__~.
\.".._1$
< <$1"E\Ill1'l!<:>slliSla'SIt
(619) ~1303 >//
Business news (619) 293-1512
UTStox (619) 686-2000
. Quotes by phone. Instructions for using
service are printed in business section
Sports news (619) 293-1341
~~~!~~~~
(619) ~.12"
Arts (619) 293-1281
Currents/Travel (619) 293-1260
Family Ties (619) 293-1327
. For Celebrations call (619) 293-2242
Food (619) 293-2292
Homes (619) 293-1886
Night&Day (619) 293-1260
. Night&DayHstings. call (619) 293-1282
Visuals
B1LLGASI-'ARlJ, SR,EOfroR. (619)
News photo desk (619) 293-1318
Administration
DOUG HOPE. SR. EDITOR- (6i9) 293-12113:
Circulation
MIKE PROEB~ILE. CIRCUl.ATION
DIRELtOR- (61H) 293-1601
Ivery · < <
e 16191299-4141
!rom 18001533.8830 <
10 start or stop a subscription. please
telephone between 5:30 a.m. and 7 p.m.
?aily or by noon on weekends Iholldays.
. SUGGESTED PRICES:
~ SublcrlptlonL.ngth Rat.P.rW..k,lnc.Tax
,lmonl" S3.16
, 1 month, 53.08
,3monlhs 53.03
16months 52.98
~ l1months 52.93 .
Weekend and Sunday-only subscriptions
lvailable on request. Rates subject 10
hange and may be higher in outlying ar-
eas. Visa. Mastercard, Discover accepted.
.. DELIVERY DEADLINES: 6 a.m. Monday-
friday and 7 a.m. weekends and holidays.
If you do not receive your paper. please
telephone before 10:30 a.m. daily or noon
pn weekends and holidays, and a replace-
ment will be del1vered.
$ingle CopylNewsstand
C~stomer Service (800) 533-8830
~ RATES: Daily 35(.; Sunday $1.S0.lncludes tax
Iwail subscriptions ..
~RATES: Payable in advance and subj~~t~'~'
California sales tax. S 16 per month for daily
andSundaydelivery;S15 per month daily
deliveryonly:S14permonthforSundayonly.
roreign rates upon application.
Advertising
clARY MOORE. ADVERTISING
UIRECTOR _ (619) 293-1500
$eJiil
Rate inquiries
ATTACHMENT E
.._.._"..~--..--:. ~'"
Taxpayers
group hits
sales tax
for libraries
By Roger M. Showley
STAFF WRITEP..
The San Diego County Taxpay-
ers Association came out yesterday
against the idea of adding a quarter
of a percentage point to the county-
wide sales tax to aid branch librar-
ies, acting even before the pro~
posed ballot measure has been
written.
Proponents are aiming at next
year's June or November ballot.
The association executive direc-
tor, Scott Barnett, said at a press
conference that his group is taking
this stand out of frustration with
the lack of analysis of the region's
library needs.
"They have had a year to address
these issues," he said, referring to
the failure of a similar measure,
Proposition A, in November 1996.
It garnered 59.1 percent support
when 66.7 percent was needed for
passage.
Barnett said his meetings with
library tax proponents indicate that
the new measure will differ little
from last year's attempt.
The tax proposal is being devel-
oped by the 19-member San Diego
County Regional Library Authority,
which includes representatives of
the area's cities and the county
Board of Supervisors.
Barnett singled out for criticism
the idea of depositing much of the
$411 million projected to come
from the five-year tax into trust
funds or endowments. The annual
interest on the accounts would be
used to augment budgets for the
operation and maintenance of about
75 branch public libraries around
the county.
"We feel it's poor public policy,"
Barnett said, explaining that the
library funds would not be available
for other needs should priorities
change. <
The taxpayer group also has
come out against building a new
main San Diego city library down-
town as currently designed and
funded.
San Diego City Councilwoman
Judy McCarty, who chairs the reo
gional library authority, called the
association's objections "flimsy ex-
cuses." She defended the trust fund
or endowment concept as "fiscally
responsible" because it would en-
sure added money for library opera-
tions and maintenance.
"It is totally p~ema~.~re,"..she sw~!d
~~'~"_"""f"I"w'''''''''t," ^ .... -";~.,-,' ""'!t"'~',
READY FOR CHRISTMAS
TONY OOU
City worker Chris Przyborowski put lights an
on the living Christmas tree near Balboa Pal
Spreckels Organ Pavilion.
S.D. council aims 1
arUEna~controls~
By Ray Huard
STAFF WRITER
Too many dogs are running
loose, while animal-control costs
are too high, San Diego City Coun-
cil members said yesterday.
Just yesterday. Councilwoman
Valerie Stallings said, she was
threatened by two wild dogs while
walking her dog on Fiesta Island.
.~ e have a system that is bro~en
and needs to be fixed and, I must
say, the animals are suffering,"
Stallings said.
Council members agreed in an
interim contract to continue' using
the county Department of Animal
Control services through March 31
while seeking other ways of con- .
trolling the city's animal popula-
tion.
"We need to look at some of the
alternatives," said Councilwoman
Judy McCarty, chairman of the
council Select Committee on Gov-
n_L'_L __
revenue, the cotm
The committe!
those services are
law and may be I
pensively throu!
means.
For example. sl
require that the c
cats or provide a
for cats.
And Councilwon
hoe said the citl
spending so much
city facing a poten
million or more u
year, which will be
"It should not b
much," Kehoe said
Mayor Susan (
can be done belt!
would not want tb
own animal-contn
"I guarantee Y'
it won't cost us tnl
The county Boa
.'" ..1...",,,,"\17 rrr!JnnM
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 11
Meeting Date 12/9/97
This item has been deleted from the agenda. This page is included
for numbering purposes only.
//-J
COUNaLAGENDASTATEMENT
ITEM /,2
MEETING DATE: 12/9/97
SUBM11TED BY:
/ S"? 30
Resolution Approving a Vision Statement and a Spending Allocation
Plan for the Proposed Quarter of a Cent Sales Tax For Libraries
LibraryDirector~ /\\A
City Manage~6 ~ tJ!! i \
(4/5th Vote: Yes_No-X)
ITEM TITLE:
REVIEWED BY:
The Regional Library Authority has requested that each library jurisdiction prepare a "vision
statement" and a spending allocation plan for monies raised by the proposed quarter of a cent sales
tax. The Authority is scheduled to meet and review the plans from Chula Vista and the other library
systems on Thursday, December II, 1997.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the "vision statement" and the spending
allocation plan for the anticipated revenue raised from the proposed quarter of a cent sales tax to
supplement current library service.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Library Board of Trustees met on
November 19, 1997 and voted to endorse the staff proposal (ATTACHMENT A).
DISCUSSION:
In the summer of 1996, the County Board of Supervisors created a Regional Library Authority which
ultimately placed a quarter of a cent sales tax for libraries on the November 1996 ballot. Although
the measure did not receive the necessary super majority, the measure was supported by 59% of
County's voters. The outcome was very similar in Chula Vista, where 59.5% of the voters agreed
to the proposed sales tax increase. In 42 ofChula Vista's 78 precincts, the yes vote was over 60%.
After the election, the Regional Library Authority expired.
On October 7, 1997, the City Council approved Resolution 18788 (ATTACHMENT B) supporting
the re-formation of a County Library Authority for the purposes of placing another library sales tax
on the ballot and appointing the Mayor as the representative to the Authority.
On October 21, 1997, the County Board of Supervisors approved Resolution 97-329 establishing the
County Regional Library Authority and specifying its purposes.
/.:<~/
ITEM PAGE 2
MEETING DATE: 12\9/96
The new Library Authority met for the first time on November 3, 1997. Besides formally ca1Iing itself
to order, the members reviewed the 1996 election results. They also asked each library jurisdiction
to prepare two elements to be reviewed at their next meeting on December 11, 1997:
1. A vision statement which describes the philosophy behind the proposed spending
allocations
2 A spending allocation plan on how the monies raised would be spent
The Authority has not yet determined whether to place the sales tax measure on the June or
November 1998 ballot.
It is anticipated that should the quarter of a cent sales tax for libraries be approved, approximately
$79.8 million annuaIly would be raised county-wide, with $4 million per year accruing to Chula Vista
based upon the amount of sales tax activity within the City. Sales tax earned in the City will stay in
the City. The tax would be collected for five years and would, eventually, total $20,000,000. This
figure could rise or fall depending on the amount of sales tax revenue. The monies could only be used
to supplement current public library services provided by the General Fund, and not used to supplant
current servicesl
In preparation for their recommendation to City Council, the Library Board of Trustees asked the
Library to solicit public input on spending priorities through a non-scientific survey
(ATTACHMENTS C & D). The survey was conducted the first week in November with over 1,000
patrons responding. The results showed that the respondents favored using the money in the
following priority:
(I) More Books (the majority of all respondents system-wide wanted more books and other
library materials)
(2) More Open Hours (South Chula Vista patrons selected this as the highest priority)
(3) Additional Public Use Computers
(4) New Library East ofI-80S
(S) Additional Youth Services
lThe benchmark figure for "current services" would be the Library's General Fund budget
during the fiscal year the tax is approved by the voters. Therefore, if the vote is held in June, the
FY 1997-98 budget would be considered the base. If the vote is in November, the FY 1998-99
budget would instead be used.
) e2 - .1...
ITEM ,PAGE 3
MEETING DATE: 12\9/96
After a review of the options, the Library Board of Trustees, Friends of the Library, and staff
recommend the "vision statement" and a $20 million expenditure plan as outlined below. This
proposal is designed to appeal to a wide range of voters and to garner support from all parts of the
community as well as meet high priority needs for library service.
PROPOSED VISION STATEMENT:
In direct response to citizen requests, the Chula Vista Public Library proposes to provide increased
access and improved services to residents
PROPOSED SPENDING ALLOCATION PLAN
Buy More Books and Library Materials 56,100,000'
$1,850,000 would be spent over the five years to increase the number of books, videos,
compact discs, audio cassettes and other software products available to the public. This
infusion of funds would also allow the Library to eliminate the $15 a year Video Insurance
Fee which families must pay in order to check-out videos. .
$3,500,000 would be put into a perpetual book fund (or endowment) which would earn
approximately $300,000 annually for new books and library materials. Use of the interest
would not begin until after the tax expires in five years.
NOTE: Staff and the Library Board realizes that the Taxpayers Association opposes
this concept (ATTACHMENT E). However, the Library believes that by establishing
endowment funds for very specifically targeted purposes, the monies are being
allocated in a responsible, appropriate manner. Endowments show that the City is
looking to the future and not strictly relying upon the tax monies to pay for services
that will go away when the tax ends in five years. Instead, Library users will continue
to see new books and new technology for many, many years to come.
Over the course of five years, $750,000 would be allocated for Technical Services staff,
supplies and services to support the acquisition, cataloging and processing of the new
materials.
2The dollar figures represent the estimated total cost of each program element over the
course of the five year life span of the tax. The various elements combined total $20,000,000.
/;2~~
ITEM ,PAGE 4
MEETING DATE: 12\9/96
Increase Hours at all Branch Libraries $1,160,000
Approximately $232,000 would be spent annually, over the five year period, to increase
public service hours at all three branches. The per week hours would increase by ten (various
mornings, nights, Saturdays) at South Chula Vista, five at Civic Center/Main (mornings 9 to
10), and EastLake by four (Sunday afternoons).
Add More Public Service Staff to Assist the Public $1,500,000
Approximately $300,000 a year would be spent to add 4.5 librarians (2 each at Civic
Center/Main and South Chula Vista Libraries and .5 at EastLake Library) and 2.5 Library
Aides (I each at Civic Center/Main and South Chula Vista and.5 at EastLake) to provide
prompter service to the public, as well as expanded children's and youth services programs.
Increase Availability of Public Computers and New Technologies $550,000
$30,000 a year would be allocated for new computers and technology upgrades. With
information delivery now so reliant upon computer technology, public libraries are faced with
a never ending struggle to catch-up with public demands and expectations. Monies would
also be used to comply with the frequent request to provide access to the Library's catalog
and other databases from all elementary and high schools as well as from home.
$400,000 would be used to create a perpetual technology fund (or endowment) for the
specific purpose of keeping abreast with new technologies. The fund should produce
approximately $35,000 a year beginning in year six. Use of the interest would not begin until
the tax expires in five years.
Construct an East-Side Branch Library 510,300,000
A majority of the dollars raised should be used to fast track the construction of a 30,000 square
foot library east ofI-805 as called for in the Library Facility Master Plan. This 30,000 square
foot project is to be funded 100% by Development Impact Fees (OIF). However, it is
anticipated that the total amount of public facility DIF funds needed will not be available until
2010. It has been determined that sales tax monies raised solely for libraries (which will go
directly into the General Fund) could be used for the construction as long as DIF monies
eventually reimburse the General Fund. These General Fund reimbursements could then be
used to pay for Library operations once the building is constructed. This concept has been
approved by the City Attorney's office and the City's Public Facilities DIF consultant.
l2-t(
ITEM PAGE 5
MEETING DATE: 12\9/96
Under this proposal, a $10.3 million library could be constructed many years earlier than
anticipated and that a steady stream of revenue would be then available to operate the facility
for 9 to 10 years after completion.
Repair/Renovate the Civic Center Library $390,000
The worn carpet and decorative banners would be replaced, furniture would be repaired or
replaced, and the wiring and technological infrastructure would be improved.
FISCAL IMPACT:
As discussed above, if approved by two thirds of the votes, the quarter of a cent sales tax would raise
approximately $4 million a year, for five years, for the Chula Vista Public Library. The estimated $20
million would be used to supplement current General Fund support. The acutal amount of money
available will be dependent upon the sales tax collected within the City limits. The monies collected
would come directly to the City of Chula Vista and would be appropriated by City Council during the
annual budget process Approximately 87% of the accumulated tax monies would be spent on one
time appropriations (new building, endowments, etc.). The remaining 13% would be spent to increase
hours and add additional public service staff. It is understood that these elements might cease at the
end of the five year life of the sales tax, unless the tax was renewed or other funding sources were
identified.
IJ f)-fl(!N H~,v rs
NOT SCANNED
/c2 ~ 5"
RESOLUTION NO. /1J'g'3C?
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING A VISION STATEMENT AND A
SPENDING ALLOCATION PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED
QUARTER OF A CENT SALES TAX FOR LIBRARIES
WHEREAS, the Regional Library Authority has requested
that each library jurisdiction prepare a "vision statement" and a
spending allocation plan for monies raised by the proposed quarter
of a cent sales tax; and
WHEREAS, the
the plans from Chula
Thursday, December 11,
Authority is scheduled to meet
vista and the other library
1997; and
and review
systems on
WHEREAS, after a review of the options, the Library Board
of Trustees, Friends of the Library and staff recommended the
following "vision statement":
In direct response to citizen requests, the
Chula Vista Public Library proposes to provide
increased access and improved services to
residents.
WHEREAS, the following is the proposed $20 million
spending allocation plan:
.
.
.
Buy more books and library materials
Increase hours at all branch libraries
All more public service staff to assist
the public
Increase availability of public computers
and new technologies
Construct an East-side Branch Library
Repair/Renovate the civic Center Library
$6,040,000
1,160,000
1,500,000
.
.
.
550,000
10,300,000
200,000
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
City of Chula vista does hereby approve the Vision Statement and
Spending Allocation Plan for the proposed quarter of a cent sales
tax for libraries as set forth above.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
ttorney
David Palmer, Library Director
C:\rs\vision.lib
/;2 -t
ATTACHMENT A
DRAFT MINUTES
LffiRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES
November 19, 1997
LffiRARY CONFERENCE ROOM
3:30 PM
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Clover-Byram, Vice Chair Alexander, Trustees
Charett, Valdovinos, Viesca and Student Member Pefta
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None
CITY STAFF PRESENT: Library Director Palmer, Principal Librarian Paula Brown
OTHERS PRESENT: Robert Coye, George Krempl, Ignacio Valdovinos
I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of September 24, 1997
This item was tabled until the January meeting.
11. CONTINUED MATTERS
A. Library Sales Tax Initiative
The Library Authority met on November 3 and requested library jurisdictions
submit a spending plan for funds received from the proposed sales tax initiative by
December 11, 1997. Jurisdictions were also asked to provide a vision statement.
Staff expanded last year's spending plan to make it more descriptive. Trustees
were asked for their input into the spending plan and vision statement. (copies
attached)
The issue of building a new library with sales tax revenue, and then reimbursing the
general funds with development impact fees, was intensively researched and is
legal as long as no wording in the ballot measure prohibiting such action.
The Friends Umbrella Board reviewed this proposed spending plan last week and
supported the spending plan in concept with the addition of an element pertaining
to the Museum. It was suggested that funds be allocated to prepare a Museum
Strategic Plan coupled with a Local History Strategic Plan.
The Taxpayers Association does not favor endowments or perpetual funds. Chair
Clover-Byram asked if the perpetual funds would be included in the Library's
endowment. Director Palmer reported that a separate accounting would be
)2-7
necessary for these funds. Vice Chair Alexander asked that efforts be made to
provide a concrete and substantial Spanish language collection at South Chula
Vista.
Vice Chair Alexander reported that Director Palmer and City Management had
met with new Southwestern College President and that he and David were charged
with exploring successful cases of joint libraries. He reported that he is in the
information gathering phase of this project.
Director Palmer reported that the library has conducted a site-specific bi-lingual
public survey at the direction of the Library Board. Library patrons were asked to
give their opinions on the following issues: 1. More open hours
2. More books
3. Additional public use
computers
4. Additional youth services
5. New library east of805
Most responses wanted more open hours and more books. These responses
guided staff in the creation of the spending plan. (Trustee Viesca arrived at
4:23 pm)
After some discussion, Trustees indicated they were very supportive of the
Museum, however, they felt it was a separate entity from the library. Trustees
asked that someone from the Museum attend the next Trustee's meeting.
MSUC (AlexanderNaldovinos) The Library Board supports efforts through
existing resources to provide a Museum Master Plan and does not endorse
including it in the library bond issue.
MSUC (AlexanderNaldovinos) The Library Board of Trustees supports the
allocation of the $20 million dollar spending priorities
).2-Ir
ATTACHMENT B
I,
Minutes
October 7. 1997
Page 3
as a team and are considered the best qualified to economically and efficiently sln1cture and market the bonds. The
Resolution was approved 5-<1. (Director of Finance)
e2 RESOLUTION 18788 TAKING A POSITION TO SUPPORT THE FORMATION OF A COUNTY
LmRARY AUTHORITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PLACING A QUARTER OF A CENT SALES TAX
MEASURE ON THE BALLOT AND DESIGNATING THE MAYOR TO ACT AS THE CITY'S
REPRESENTATIVE ON SAID AUTHORITY - On 1017/97. the San Diego County Board of Supervisors is
scheduled to approve a resolution to create a County-wide Library Authority. This Authority will consider placing
a 1/4 cent sales tax proposal on the 612/98 ballot. If placed on the ballot and approved. the tax would be in effect
for five years. would be dedicated to library improvements only. and would provide Chula Vista with an estimated
$15 - $19 million dollars. The resolution was approved 5-0. (Library Director)
9. RESOLUTION 18789 AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 1997/98 BUDGET TO APPROPRIATE
$17,492 FOR THE MIDDLE SCHOOL PROGRAM FROM THE GENERAL FUND RESERVE; AND
ADDING A 0.75 FULL-TIME EQillVALENT (FTE) YOUTH COORDINATOR (UNCLASSIFIED) TO
SUPERVISE THE PROGRAM; AND ADDING 0.48 FTE PART -TIME HOURL Y RECREATION LEADER
TO STAFF THE PROGRAM; AND TO APPROPRIATE $24.492 TO 100-1562 FROM UNANTICIPATED
REVENUE OF $24,492 FROM SWEETW A TER HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR THE MIDDLE SCHOOL
PROGRAM - At the budget workshop on 6/2/97. Council heard the-proposal for a Middle School Program from
the Principal of the Chula Vista Junior High School. A proposal has been prepared for the City to fund the
program. in conjunction with funds already approved by the Sweetwater Union High School District, to implement
an after-school program at each of the four middle schools. (Director of Parks. Recreation and Open Space)
4/5th's vote required.
City Manager Goss requested the item be continued; it will come back when it is ready.
Mayor Horton stated that she was recently approached by someone whose daughter was a part-time recreational
employee who was participating in an after-school program. There were times when no one was there other than
herself. She requested that staff come back with a report on this item telling the Council a little bit about the
different programs at the different schools and how many children are participating. This is so the Council can fully
understand how effective these programs are to make sure that our money is being wdl spent. Weare all
supportive of these after-school programs. but we want to make sure they are successful.
Councilmember Salas stated she would like to explon:: better utilization of the time and hours and identify which
school needs the services the most in order to establish a five-day program in one of the middle schools. If you
are going to provide it two days a week. you are not going to establish any type of consistency in the children
attending that. She would like to see if there was any data on which middle school had the highest need. She would
rather see service five-days a week consolidated in one school that has a greater need.
Councilmember Moot stated that in the budget the Council approved the experimental program at one school. He
was not sure how it got expanded to three schools and what the budget implications are.
Mr. Goss stated that was approved for five days a week on an experimental basis. At the same time there was a
request by the Council to come back to see what we could do to expand it to the other middle schools. This is a
discussion that we had with Sweetwater District. and we brought it back to show you how it could be expanded.
Councilmember Rindone added that the point regarding consistency was valid. but he was also equally concerned
about the cost of the programs. We will have to balance both of these issues. An additional item for staff's analysis
is the cost of a four-day-a-week program. We have had experience in the past that attendance is active Monday
through Thursday and drops off on Friday because of weekend activities and related community athletic programs.
It might be a viable alternative to consider four-days since it will provide consistency and will save 20% of the cost.
. . · END OF CONSENT CALENDAR · · .
/"<-'7
We want your opinion...
ATTACHMENT C
The county Regional Library Authority will once again place a 5 year, 1/4 cent sales tax measure on the ballot in
1998. It will take 67% of the vote to pass, and it would mean almost $20 million for Chula Vista Libraries.
The Library Board of Trustees has requested that you help us determine how it should be spent. Please fill this
out and return it to the survey box at the Check-out desk.
ENHANCEMENT
RANK (please number 1-5, with 1 as "most
important")
*More open hours
*More books
* Additional public use computers
* Additional Children's Services
*New full-service library east of 805
Other ideas (use the space below):
We want your opinion...
The county Regional Library Authority will once again place a 5 year, 1/4 cent sales tax measure on the ballot in
1998. It will take 67% of the vote to pass, and it would mean almost $20 million for Chula Vista Libraries.
The Library Board of Trustees has requested that you help us determine how it should be spent. Please fill this
out and return it to the survey box at the Check-out desk.
ENHANCEMENT
RANK (please number 1-5, with I as "most
important")
*More open hours
*More books
* Additional public use computers
* Additional Children's Services
*New full-service library east of 805
Other ideas (use the space below):
/}//o
ATTACHMENT D
......
0')
0')
.....
:>
o
Z
>.
Q)
~
::::l
CI)
"'C
....
ra
)
...J
~
ra
....
.0
...J
ra
.....
l/)
.-
>
ra
::::l
.s::
U
~..,
~
o
I
C
QlN
a.
o
~~
~:c
E
'Iii
Gl
~
J:
.~
J:
>.
~
:c
E
'Iii
Gl
~
~
.S2
It)
~
co'"
...."":
'"
~
~
~
N....
....'"
~
~
~
",'"
",,,":
co
~
~
",'"
co'"
'"
N
"if.
CON
",'"
'"
N
....
.,
Q)
'"
<::
o
Co
'"
Q)
-
....
'"
~
-
Q)
"E
Q)
u
"
";:
U
~
NO
CO~
'"
~
~
0....
....'"
cO
~
"'....
....~
N
~
~
"''''
N....
~ "
'"
~
"if.
0'"
"''''
N "
'"
....
.,
Q)
'"
<::
o
Co
'"
~
~
'"
~
...J
>
U
CJl
~
....'"
....
cO
~
",CO
~'"
'"
~
~
o
",N
N"":
N
N
~
~'"
N"":
o
N
~
",'"
",,,"
'"
'"
.,
Q)
'"
<::
o
Co
'"
Q)
-
....
o
~
Q)
""
'"
:d
'"
'"
W
~
....
....
N
~
~
N
'"
<0
~
~
o
IIi
~
~
....
CO
o
N
~
'"
....
<0
'"
.,
Q)
'"
<::
o
Co
'"
Q)
-
'"
'"
0_
~
E
Q)
U;
>-
CJl
(/)
.l<:N
o
o
CD
~
o
~
>-
:!::
:c
E
'Iii
Gl
~
~
.S2
It)
~
....0
...."":
~
~
~
00
"'N
<0
..,
~
....0
....'"
N
~
~
....0
....'"
o
N
>.
==
:c
E
"Iii
Gl
~
J:
.~
J:
"if.
"'0
"'0
~N
....
....
~
'"
Q)
'"
<::
o
Co
'"
~
....
'"
~
:;;
"E
Q)
u
"
";:
U
~
OCO
CO"!
N
~
~
CO ~
....'"
,..:
~
",'"
CO""
'"
~
~
....~
"'....
~ "
~
N
~
........
....'"
N "
CO
'"
.,
Q)
'"
c:
o
Co
'"
Q)
-
~
'"
~
...J
>
U
CJl
/e2 ~ / /
~
ON
~ CO
oj
~
ON
~'"
oj
~
"'....
~"!
CO
~
~
CO~
~'"
....
~
"if.
....'"
...."":
'"
....
.,
Q)
'"
c:
o
Co
'"
~
....
o
~
Q)
""
'"
:d
'"
'"
W
*
'"
~
N
~
~
(;
<0
~
Ql
-
~..,
c.
E
o
C,)
alN
(/)
:::>
.2 >.
:!::
.0::
~.Cl
c.. E
ro ";;;
c Gl
o~
~.c
.- 01
"0._
"OJ:
<(.....
~
M
CO
oj
~
~
....
CO
ci
N
"if.
o
....
ci
....
.,
Q)
'"
<::
o
Co
'"
Q)
-
'"
'"
o
~
~
E
2
'"
>-
CJl
>-
:!:
:c
E
";;;
Gl
~
~
.S2
It)
~
",0
"'~
'"
~
~
*
00
",'"
'"
~
*
....0
...."!
~
N
~
....0
....'"
N
~
~
NO
CO~
N
N
.,
Q)
'"
<::
o
Co
'"
Q)
-
....
'"
~
:;;
"E
Q)
u
"
";:
U
*
NCO
"'~
....
~
~~
00
~ "
'"
~
~
CO'"
........
~ "
'"
N
~
",M
CO"!
'"
~
"if.
CO'"
........
~oj
N
.,
Q)
'"
<::
o
Co
'"
~
;;;
~
...J
>
U
CJl
*
"'....
~N
CO
~
~
*
~'"
N"":
o
N
~
",CO
~'"
'"
~
*
"'....
N~
....
N
"if.
~'"
N"":
o
N
.,
Q)
'"
<::
o
Co
'"
Q)
-
....
o
~
Q)
""
'"
...J
U;
'"
W
*
o
~
IIi
~
*
CO
'"
cO
~
*
'"
~
~
N
~
CO
'"
..=
~
*
....
CO
N
N
.,
Q)
'"
<::
o
Co
'"
~
'"
'"
o
~
~
E
Q)
U;
>-
CJl
....
'"
M
~
-
~
~
N
CD
~
>'
W
>
lr
::J
CJl
-
CO
'"
W
I-
o
~
~
~
9
i.j
-
-
:;:
'"
;a
...
(")
:.;.
D
1J
!
o
....
m
co
'"
Iii
c
;c
<
m
-<
~
ID
'"
:
(Jl
'<
..
iD
3
o
co
co
lD
..
-c
o
"
..
CD
~
'"
!"
o
'"
i/.
'"
'"
:.....~
'"
i/.
co
OJ
'"
i/.
-
'"
. -
~...
i/.
-
9
co
'"
i/.
-
o
. -
~-
i/.
-
-
-
...
. -
~'"
'*
'"
'"
'*
'"
f>-
...
'"
'*
'"
'"
.'"
lll....
'*
m
III
'"
;=
III
""
CD
~
-
o
....
lD
'"
-c
o
"
'"
CD
~
'"
9_
...",
"'co
i/.
=-'
co'"
"'0
'*
-
-
.....
(;l...
'*
-
'"
. ...
~'"
'*
'"
=-'",
"''''
"''''
'*
(Jl
(")
<
r-
Oi
'"
-
~
CD
..
-c
o
"
..
CD
~
'"
...
. co
(;lo
i/.
co
"''''
"''''
'*
co
"''''
"''''
'*
'"
"''''
"'-
'*
'"
9_
"'-
"'0
'*
/)-J;)-
(")
=<
o'
(")
CD
"
iD
~
W
'"
...
~
CD
'"
-c
o
"
..
CD
~
...
::T
cQ'
::TZ
Q.CD
IX ==
::;"c
~O"
-. ...,
= III
.;(-<!
m
III
"'!!L
o
-.
CO
o
W01
""
UI
0"
~
Q.
III
..
:f
g
::;:
'<
(Jl
'<
..
iD
3
-
""0
co
co
lD
'"
-c
o
"
..
CD
~
-
=-'
'"
co
i/.
-
...
. -
~'"
i/.
-
'"
Co
'"
i/.
-
'"
. -
g;",
i/.
-
!"
'"
'"
'*
'"
'"
. '"
:g...
'*
'"
'"
OJ
co
i/.
'"
'"
. '"
a:....
'*
-
co
'"
'"
i/.
'"
o
:...'"
co-
'*
m
III
'"
;=
III
""
CD
-
o
....
lD
'"
-c
o
"
'"
CD
~
-
?>-
"'-
"''''
i/.
-
...
. co
lllo
i/.
-
'"
. co
lllco
'*
'"
!"-
"'...
"''''
'*
-
!"-
-'"
"'-
i/.
(Jl
(")
<
r
Oi
'"
-
lD
'"
-c
o
"
..
CD
~
-
'"
. '"
~'"
i/.
-
o
. '"
;1",
'*
-
'"
. '"
8l...
'*
~
. ...
~'"
;F.
'"
o
. ...
1:j....
'*
(')
<'
o'
(")
CD
"
~
w
'"
....
~
CD
'"
-c
o
"
'"
CD
~
...
::T
cQ';t>
::To.
Q.o.
III
en ;:::::;.:
~r g"
!2:~
~~
c:
-
::::r
"'en
CD
<
O'
wCD
(Jl
....
UI
0"
~
Q.
III
..
~.
!2:
::;:
'<
(")
=r
c:
-
Q)
<
(Jl
.....
Q)
r
-.
C"
.,
Q)
-<
.-
I-
Q)
.,
0-
m
c:
<
CD
'<
Z
o
<
.....
to
to
......
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM /.3
MEETING DATE 12/09/97
I g'g'31
ITEM TITLE: Resolution accepting California State Library matching funds
awarded to the Chula Vista Literacy Team, appropriating funds, and
amending FY 1997-98 budget.
SUBMITTED BY: Library Directo~ / C kA
REVIEWED BY: City Manage~ '07\~ote: YES ~ NO ~
In 1987 the library received a five-year CalifJJua State Library grant to establish the Chula
Vista Literacy Team. The fifth and final year of this funding was FY '91-92. The California
State Library has announced another one-year extension of California Library Services Act
funding for programs which were awarded the original five-year grants. The FY '97-98
awards are based on a match of$l for every $4.68 raised and spent locally during FY '97-98.
This will provide $32,359 to the Chula Vista Literacy Team.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolution accepting the grant,
appropriating the funds, and amending the FY 1997-98 budget.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Library Board of Trustees has
traditionally supported the Literacy Team's acceptance of matching funds, which are a
continuation of the original CLSA literacy grant.
DISCUSSION:
As an extension of the original CLSA literacy grant, this $32,359 grant is intended to
supplement monies raised locally to support the library's adult literacy program. Funds
will be used to continue the professional services contract with our computer lab
coordinator, who provides key support to the adult literacy learning lab at the Literacy
Center, located in the South Chula Vista Library. Funds will also be used to hire one or
more instructors to provide inservice support to tutors, lead small group classes, and aid in
the learner assessment process. This plan has been approved by the California State
Library.
FISCAL IMPACT: Accepting this grant will provide $32,359 in FY '97-98 to the Chula
Vista Literacy Team. These funds cannot supplant existing funds. (For matching fund budget,
see Attachment A.)
/3 -/
CLSA MATCHING FUNDS BUDGET
FY 1997-98
November, 1997
BUDGET ACCOUNT: 216-2164
5201 Professional Services
Computer Lab Coordinator
Instructor/Tutor Mentor
TOTAL:
$21,600.
$10,759
$32,359.
) 3-;2
ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO.
1:/%3/
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING CALIFORNIA STATE LIBRARY
MATCHING FUNDS AWARDED TO THE CHULA VISTA
LITERACY TEAM, APPROPRIATING FUNDS, AND
AMENDING FY 1997-98 BUDGET
WHEREAS, in 1987 the
California State Library grant
Literacy Team; and
library received
to establish the
a five-year
Chula vista
WHEREAS, the fifth and final year of this funding was FY
'91-92; and
WHEREAS, the California State Library has announced
another one-year extension of California Library Services Act
funding for programs which were awarded the original five-year
grants; and
WHEREAS, the FY '97-98 awards are based on a match of $1
for every $4.68 raised and spent locally during FY '97-98 which
will provide $32,359 to the Chula vista Literacy Team.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
City of Chula Vista does hereby accept the California State Library
matching funds awarded to the Chula Vista Literacy Team.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the FY 1997-98 budget is
hereby amended by appropriating $32,359 to Budget Account 216-2164
as set forth in Attachment A.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
David Palmer, Library Director
torney
C:\rs\literacy.grt
/3--3
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TITLE:
ITEM / f
MEETING DATE 12/09/97
Resolution /%2fc~~ng California Department of Education Adult
Basic Education Section 321 grant funds awarded to the Chula Vista
Literacy Team, appropriating funds, and amending FY 1997-98
budget to include a .14 FTE position.
SUBMITTED BY: Library Directo~ / Ch~
REVIEWED BY: City Manage~CsJ. ~~te: YES ~ NO ~
The Chula Vista Public Library applied for calihlmia Department of Education ABE Section
321 funds for each ofFY 1996-97 and FY 1997-98. The primary purpose of these grant funds
is to improve the quality and responsiveness of programs which enable adults to acquire basic
literacy skills. The second year grant of $5,970 has been awarded to the Library. The award
is divided into two parts. The base grant ($3,500) must be used for supplemental staff
development, assessment, and/or networking. The remaining funds ($2,470) are calculated
based on the number of learner attendance hours, and these may be used for staff
development and/or other enhancements to program quality.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolution accepting California
Department of Education Adult Basic Edu,cation Section 321 grant funds awarded to the
Chula Vista Literacy Team, appropriating funds, and amending FY 1997-98 budget to include
a .14 FTE position.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: On On January 24, 1996 the Library
Board of Trustees voted to continue support for the Library's ABE Section 321 application.
(ATTACHMENT A.)
DISCUSSION:
On June 11, 1996, Council ratified the Library's application for ABE 321 grant funds to be
awarded over a two year period. (ATTACHMENT B.) The second year grant funds will be
used to support conducting learner needs assessments and progress evaluations,! (a .14 FTE
clerical aide) and to provide additional hours of supervision and training to volunteer tutors.
FISCAL IMPACT: Accepting this grant will provide $5,970 to implement this program
in FY '97-98 through the Chula Vista Literacy Team. The grant was approved for a two-year
period, based upon submission of an annual continuation request. Funds cannot be used to
supplant the current volunteer tutor program. These funds will be appropriated into fund
260- 2607 . (ATTACHMENT C).
)1J- /
ftlIP
"- JJ [5
e.HM~ ~n
f111f/ C~~
~O't ~
RESOLUTION NO. /~tr~oZ
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION ADULT BASIC EDUCATION SECTION 321
GRANT FUNDS AWARDED TO THE CHULA VISTA
LITERACY TEAM, APPROPRIATING FUNDS, AND
AMENDING FY 1997-98 BUDGET TO INCLUDE A .14
FTE POSITION
WHEREAS, the Chu1a vista Public Library applied for
California Department of Education ABE section 321 funds for each
of FY 1996-97 and FY 1997-98; and
WHEREAS, the primary purpose of these grant funds is to
improve the quality and responsiveness of programs which enable
adults to acquire basic literacy skills; and
WHEREAS, the second year grant of $5,970 has been awarded
to the Library and is divided into two parts: the base grant
($3,500) must be used for supplemental staff development,
assessment, and/or networking and the remaining funds ($2,470) are
calculated based on the number of learner attendance hours, and
these may be used for staff development and/or other enhancements
to program quality; and
WHEREAS, on January 24, 1996, the Library Board of
Trustees voted to continue to support the Library'S application for
ABE section 321 grant funds.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula vista does hereby accept California Department of
Education Adult Basic Education section 321 grant funds awarded to
the Chu1a vista Literacy Team.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the FY 1997-98 budget is
amended to include a .14 FTE position and $5,970 is appropriated
into Fund 260-2607 as set forth in Attachment C.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
David Palmer, Library Director
J~K~~.
Attorney
C:\rs\abe321.grt
/1//,)
(
ATIACHMENT A
Library Board of Trustees
- 3 -
January 24, 1996
arena. The YMCA currently has a soccer arena on its Paseo Ranchero and
Paseo Magda site, which serves between 1,200 to 1,400 children per year.
The YMCA is planning to move the soccer arena to the library site while
its new facility was being built, probably in early 1998.
The library would ultimately benefit as its site would be improved and
utilities brought in at no cost to the City. The City could then install a
temporary facility to serve the Rancho del Rey community. YMCA staffis
currently negotiating with the Sweetwater School District for joint use of
their soccer fields at the middle school soon to be constructed.
Director Palmer suggested that the Library Board support a two-year
agreement with an option to renew for one year, wit~ a six month notice to
vacate. .
MSUC Donovan! Alexander) that the Library Board supports a two year
agreement with the YMCA with an option to extend it for one year and a
six month escape clause.
(
ACTION
C.
Literacy ABE Section 321 Grant
MSUC (Alexander/Donovan) that the Library Board supports the Literacy
Team's application for ABE, Section 321 grant funds.
(Trustee Viesca arrived at this time 3 :30 pm)
ACTION
A
1996-97 Budget
Dawn Herring, City Budget Manager, reported to the Trustees that the
City is transitioning to a more performance based budget. The budgets will
be input on a new local area network-based system which will allow staff
to use information in many different ways. The new system will also have
the ability to evolve to future City needs. The City Manager has asked
departments to prepare potential 10% budget cuts. Staff will go back to
Council in February or March to get feedback on their priorities before the
budget is finalized. (Trustee Williams arrived at this time 4:00 pm)
Chair Clover-Byram asked if the City took into consideration revenue from
new stores and businesses such as the new W.allmart. Mrs. Herring stated
that the City Manager did indeed take this revenue into consideration.
/'1 -3
ABE SECTION 321 FUNDS
FY 1997-98
11/11/97
BUDGET ACCOUNT: 260-2607
5105 Hourly Wages
$2,532.
5143 Medicare
$37.
5145 PARS
$96.
5201 Professional Services
$3.305.
TOTAL:
$5,970.
) J/- -J
ATTACHMENT C
AITACBMENT B
Minutt:s
June II, 1996
Pag~ 3
(
requesting pennissioo to conduct a Fiestas Patrias special event on Sunday, Septemb<:r 15, 1996, in and around
Bayside Park. As a co-spoasor of the event, lhe City is applying for a Tidelands Activity Pennit from the San
Diego Unified Port District, which contains indemnitkation language. Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
(Director of Parks and Recreation and Chief of Pulice)
9. RESOLUTION 18330 APPROVING THE RENEWAL OF THE AGREEMENT WITH THE
SWEETWATER UNION mGH SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR JOINT USE OF THE LIBRARY FACILITY AT
EASTLAKE HIGH SCHOOL - The original three-year agreement providing for the jointllS<O of the EastLake High
Scbool Library will expire on 6/30/96. On 12119/95, Council directed Library staff to negotialtl a renewal of the
joint use agreement with Scbool District staff. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Library Director)
Counalmember Rindone abstained from participation in order to avoid a conflict of interest due to his
employment by the Sweetwater Union High School District.
10. REPORT APPLICATION OF THE CHULA VISTA PUBLIC LIBRARY FOR CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, ADULT BASIC EDUCATION, SECTION 321 FUNDING FOR THE
TWO-YEAR PERIOD FISCAL YEAR 1996/97 AND FISCAL YEAR 1997/98 THROUGH THE CHULA
VISTA LITERACY TEAM - The Chula Vista Public Library bas applied for,$5,840 in California Department of
Education, ABE Section 321 funds for fiscal years 1996/97 and 1997/98 (subject to availability of funds from the
federal government). The funds will b<: US<Od to improve the quality and responsiveness of programs which enable
adults to acquire basic literacy slcills. Staff reCommends Council accept the report and ratify the Library's
application for California Department of Education Adult Basic Education, Section 321 funding. (Library Director)
c
· · END OF CONSENT CALENDAR. *
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
II. PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERATION OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER 70 FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF A 35-FOOT HIGH FREESTANDING SIGN AT THE BROADWAY ENTRY TO
CHANNELSIDE SHOPPING CENTER The sign is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act by
a Class II (a) exemption. On 7125/94, the Design Review Committee reviewed and approved the sign with a
maximum of five panels. The Coastal Commission approved a Local Coastal Program (LCP) amendment on 5n/96,
to allow freestanding signs up to 35 feet in height within the Inland Parcel, Subarea 4 of the LCP. Staff
recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of COllUDunity Development)
RESOLUTION 18331 AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
NUMBER 70 FOR A 35-FOOT HIGH FREESTANDING SIGN AT THE BROADWAY ENTRY TO
CHANNELSIDE SHOPPING CENTER
Councilmemb<:r A1evy stated he would abstain from participation in order to avoid a contlict of interest as Gallin
was . client of bis firm. Councilmemb<:r Moot stated he would abstain from participation in order to avoid a
conflict of interest as Gatlin was also . client of his linn.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open. 11>0:", being no public testimony.
the public hearing was dclclared closed.
RESOLUTION 18331 OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER RINDONE, r....dillll ofthe text was waived, passed
and approved J~-2 with Alevy and Mout abslainillll.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
. Marie Sackett, 609 Mariposa Circle, Chula Visla, CA. was nol pre,",nt when called to lhe dais.
/tj~1/
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item:
Meeting Date: 12/09/97
/~~
ITEM TITLE:
Resolution /73"3 -1pproving the Park Master Plan for Rolling Hills Ranch
Neighborhood Park ()
Director of Parks, Recreation, :ntf~en Spac~
City Manager~G::t ~ ~ \ (4/5ths Vote: Yes
No X)
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND: The neighborhood park at Rolling Hills Ranch is a 7.0 acre site located at Mt. Miguel
Road and MacKenzie Creek Road. Rolling Hills Ranch (formerly Salt Creek Ranch) is in the eastern
territories of the City of Chula Vista. Rolling Hills Ranch is a planned residential community with a
focus on open space, trails and a park system.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Council approve the Resolution approving the Park Master
Plan (Attachment A) for the Rolling Hills Neighborhood Park.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: On October 16, 1997, the Parks and Recreation
Commission considered this item (Minutes - Attachment B) and unanimously endorsed the Park Master
Plan.
DISCUSSION:
The Salt Creek Ranch (CY Tract No. 92-02) tentative map conditions required twenty-nine (29) acres of
useable park land in the project. The tentative map established an improvement schedule for the
construction of a twenty-two (22) acre community park and a seven (7) acre neighborhood park as
follows:
a. Twelve (12) acres of the community park completed one year after the recordation of the
final map for the 592nd lot.
b. The remaining acres of the community park completed one year after the recordation of
the final map for the 1,44 7th lot.
c. The seven (7) neighborhood parks to be completed one year after the recordation of the
2,200th lot.
Construction of the Neighborhood Park in advance of the Community Park
The Department and the Developer, Pacific Bay Homes, responding to concerns expressed by the adjacent
Cabo and Chapala neighborhoods, regarding the absences of any park amenities in the Salt Creek I
Development, negotiated an accelerated schedule for the partial construction of the neighborhood park.
Moreover, the decision to commence construction of the neighborhood park in advance of the community
park was also keyed into an amended phasing plan of homes. The original draft tentative map called for
the initial phasing of homes to occur from east to west or next to the community park (off of Hunte
[H:\Home\Parlcsrec\Alt3\ - rollhill.A13]
1
/--5' -- )
Item:
Meeting Date: 12/09/97
Parkway and Proctor Valley Road). However, further revisions to the tentative map called for phasing
to begin from west of the subdivision to eastern reach of their property. The latter revision to the
tentative map was approved by Council in 1991. Since basic infrastructure (streets/sewers/utilities) will
not extend to the community park until later phases of development, it makes logical sense to construct
the neighborhood park first. Further, in the initial phase of development, homes will be built around the
neighborhood park, thereby generating an immediate need for park services. Finally, from a customer
service perspective, access to the neighborhood park will be far more convenient for residents because
of its close proximity to their homes. The entire neighborhood park will be built in one phase.
Pacific Bay Homes has deposited $5,357,860 with the City towards meeting their future PAD fee
obligations for Rolling Hills Ranch. As such, they will not be paying PAD fees but receiving a credit
against their deposit, or drawing down their deposit, based upon any turnkey park construction they may
undertake in the future. In the event the City amends its Municipal Code to increase the development
portion of its PAD fees prior to a recordation of a Final Map, and there is an insufficient balance
remaining in the security deposit, Pacific Bay Homes shall be obligated to deposit additional funds with
the City.
Conceot Plan - The Rolling Hills Ranch neighborhood park concept plan is based on the rurallranch
character of the residential community. The park concept was selected to create an identity for the
neighborhood park as well as tie the park into a unified open space system. The overall concept for park
development is based on the historic setting of the site, incorporating the feeling of the old ranchos into
the park facilities and open space. Particular attention has been given to the grading design to create a
unique park site. The park is divided into three terraces with a gradual slope around the exterior of the
park to accentuate the grade changes, frame views, and create a gateway to the park. Activity areas are
separated by low seat walls that define the terraces and provide informal seating. The ranchos had a
simplicity of organization that provided for a central yard (open lawn area for play and picnics), with
carefully detailed "rooms" and "patios" (play areas, shade structures and restroom/maintenance building)
for activities along a main promenade.
Materials and Plant Palette - Traditional materials are used in the park's design with heavy wood beams,
corrugated metal, tile roofs and wood trellis structures. The landscape concept is based on California's
historic rancho design and plant palette including Eucalyptus, Sycamore, California pepper, and
Cottonwoods. A pedestrian path with a row of California pepper trees lines the main promenade. The
smaller play area contains an orchard with flowering trees. A small garden provides an area for passive
activities such as picnics.
Park Program - Programming of the neighborhood park facilities was based on an analysis of the existing
and proposed land uses/densities, the future school site, and the park sites in proximity to Rolling Hills
Ranch. Both active and passive recreation is part of the park program. Tennis and basketball courts,
as well as a large lawn area for open play, provide active recreation. Play areas with separate
components for toddlers and adolescents include custom play equipment, swings and shade structures.
Picnic areas, a large shade pavilion, and gardens with picnic tables and benches for reading and reposing,
provide passive recreation with the main promenade connecting the adjacent elementary school property.
[H:\Home\Parksrec\Al13\ - rollhill,A131
2
~~~ c:(
Item:
Meeting Date: 12/09/97
The Department shared the park project with the Chula Vista Elementary School District to get their
input. The District is very supportive of having the park adjacent to the school ground. They are
anxious to discuss cooperative sharing of each agency's facilities. They feel the park design will provide
a unique scholastic experience for the students.
Safetv /Maintenance - Design of the neighborhood park meets the criteria set forth in the City of Chula
Vista Landscape Manual and City standards. The open design, grading and arrangement of facilities was
based on consideration of security surveillance and social activities of the park. Construction materials
and play structures were selected for ease of maintenance and durability.
The potential impact of a neighborhood park was analyzed in the Salt Creek Environmental Impact Report
91-3; therefore, the concept plan is in compliance.
FISCAL IMPACT: Pacific Bay Home will construct the turn-key park, and provide for a one-year
maintenance period at an estimated cost of $1.6 million. The developer will be reimbursed for approved
expenditures from the PAD fees on deposit. The Department estimates ongoing yearly maintenance cost
of $56,000.
Attachments:
A:
B:
Park Master Plan 1>'1>
October 16, 1997 Minut~~fiecreation Commission (Excerpt)
~O't
[H:\Home\Park.o;rel;\A113\ - rollhilI.A13]
3
/~3
RESOLUTION NO. ;'SV~~~
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE PARK MASTER PLAN FOR
ROLLING HILLS RANCH NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
WHEREAS, the neighborhood park at Rolling Hills Ranch is
a 7.0 acre site located at Mt. Miguel Road and MacKenzie Creek
Road; and
WHEREAS, Rolling Hills Ranch (formerly Salt Creek Ranch)
is in the eastern territories of the City of Chula Vista; and
WHEREAS, Rolling Hills Ranch is a planned residential
community with a focus on open space, trails and a park system; and
WHEREAS, design of the neighborhood park meets the
criteria set forth in the City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual and
city standards and is based on the rural/ranch character of the
residential community; and
WHEREAS, on October 16, 1997, the Parks and Recreation
Commission unanimously endorsed the Park Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has
determined that the potential impact of a neighborhood park was
analyzed in the Salt Creek Environmental Impact Report 91-3 and the
concept plan is in compliance and no further environmental review
is required.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
City of Chula vista does hereby find that the neighborhood park was
analyzed in EIR No. 91-3 and does hereby approve the Park Master
Plan for Rolling Hills Ranch Neighborhood Park as set forth in
Attachment A.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Cl- ~~~ ~
John M. Kaheny, city ttorney
Jess Valenzuela, Director of
Parks, Recreation and Open Space
C:\rs\rollhill.prk
/5-1/
~
...
>
...
>
..
c
~~
lO,
::):,
...
...
.
"
i
~,^,~~'.'
.1.1 l t' ,
. ,
' ~- -'. ..
..\ .
/5'--- 6
..
..
... - - ~
u i l
z " ~
0 2 ~ .
! ~ ~
u ~ ~ ,
I , ,
.. " . ,
t , , ,
II: r ~ . i
c . " ~
.. -
~-..-'r'--
-- .
ATTACHMENT B
EXCERPT
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
MINUTES
Thursday - 6:30 p.m.
Conference Room 2&3
October 16, 1997
276 Fourth Avenue
6. New Business
a. Rolling Hills (6.8 Acres - Salt Creek)
Deputy Director Foncerrada presented a brief background history on the project and introduced Liz
Jackson from Rolling Hills and Sue Peerson from Spurlock Porier, who were available to answer
any questions.
Ms. Peerson noted that the character of the park was much like a rural ranch setting. The materials
used in the project were consistent with the City's Landscape Manual. Materials used included
decomposed granite, wood for the benches, concrete picnic tables, split rail fences, stone walls, and
jacaranda trees.
In answer to questions from the Commission, Ms. Peerson explained that the stairs the Commission
saw on the renderings were actually ramps and that nothing was greater than 5%; this met the ADA
requirements. The grassy, open field will be used for active recreation such as baseball, picnicking,
etc. The pathways that are on the far end and middle will be lined with shredded bark mulch. At
this time there are no benches out on the Eucalyptus grove but there are benches in the garden
under two wooden trellises. The overlook will look down on open space.
Deputy Director Foncerrada said that they would like to have the Commission accept the plan.
MSUC (Helton/Rude) to accept the character and plan of Rolling Hills Ranch neighborhood
park.
/5r?
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item / c}
Meeting Date 12/9/97
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: Considering retaining the Calendar Year 1998 (CY98)
Business License Tax rates at the current CY97 levels.
J,fsr3Lj
Resolution _: Abating the Business License Tax rates for CY98, holding
CY98 tax rates at the current CY97 levels
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Financer/ /' ~h^
REVIEWED BY: City Manager~ 'LJ ~~ (4/5ths Vote Yes_No.x)
This public hearing is being conducted to discuss the advisability of abating the business license
tax increase scheduled for CY98. On October 25, 1990 the City Council passed Ordinance 2408
which adopted increased business license tax rates which were to be phased in from 1991-1993,
with annual increases of 6% to occur in subsequent years, beginning in 1994. Ordinance 2408
also provided Council with the ability to abate the scheduled business license tax increase during
any year, for a one year period only, to any level chosen as long as the tax rates did not fall below
the 1991 level. Due to the economic downturn in the past years, the City Council has abated all
scheduled tax increases since 1991. Thus the current tax rate for the majority of businesses has
remained at the CY9l tax levels. Since revenue estimates in the current FY98 budget are based
on retaining the current tax rates, abating the CY98 tax to keep taxes at the same level would not
negatively affect this year's budget. If local economic conditions continue to improve, staff may
return to Council with a report prior to adoption of next year's budget with various options to
phase in the tax rate increases which have been abated since 1991.
Notification of the public hearing and copies of this report were sent to the Chamber of
Commerce, the Broadway Business Association, the Downtown Business Association and the
Bonita Professional Association.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:
I. Conduct the public hearing.
2. Adopt Resolution _ to abate the scheduled CY98 business license tax
increase to retain taxes in CY98 at their current level.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: N/A
/~//
Page 2 Item
Meeting Date 12/9/97
DISCUSSION:
Tax History and Qptions for CY98 Abatement
On October 25, 1990, the City Council adopted Ordinance 2408, approving a business license
tax increase. The new tax rates were to be phased in over a three year period (50% of the
increase scheduled for 1991, and 25% of the increase scheduled in 1992 and 1993 respectively),
with 6 % increases in subsequent years to account for inflation. This schedule was adopted to
provide businesses with the flat rate/per employee tax structure they requested, while at the same
time ensuring that tax rates were not eroded in the future due to inflation, necessitating large
future adjustments. To allow maximum flexibility Ordinance 2408 also provides Council with the
ability to conduct a public hearing and abate all or a portion of the tax rate for a one year period,
to no less than the CY9l tax rate. If Council does not abate the tax in any given year, the taxes
for all business will automatically be increased to the level specified in the Master Tax Schedule
for that calendar year.
In 1991 the first year of the tax increase went into effect. However, shortly thereafter the
economy experienced a substantial downturn. Council abated the scheduled tax increases in
CY92-CY97, in response to the continued economic recession and concerns expressed by local
businesses. These abatements were needed to adjust the flat tax rates in response to the
recessionary period. If flat tax rates are not adjusted accordingly, the relative tax burden on a
business will be highest during poor economic times and lowest during prosperous times. Since
the taxes have been held constant for six years through abatements, taxes would more than double
for the majority of businesses if Council does not partially or entirely abate the scheduled CY98
tax increase via resolution.
Fortunately it appears that the local economy is sustaining a steady recovery. In FY97 the number
of new businesses licensed increased 8.5 % over the previous fiscal year. Most reports on the local
economic outlook are positive. With the economy in the early stages of recovery, now may not
be the best time to allow the business license tax to increase. However, at some point in the near
future tax rates will have to be adjusted upwards if the economy continues to improve and there
is a desire to maintain an equivalent level of tax support for the City services provided. Since
1991, when the last tax adjustment occurred, the San Diego Consumer Price Index has increased
by over 16%. Chula Vista tax rates are still at the low end of the spectrum County-wide (Table
1) and will continue to provide less revenue relative to other sources if they are not adjusted
periodically. Staff intends to provide Council with options for adjusting this tax based on local
economic conditions and Council policy direction during next year's budget process. However,
if Council chooses to set business license taxes at a higher level than recommended, some
alternatives are presented for consideration on Table 2 which is discussed later in this report.
J~-2
Page 3 Item
Meeting Date 12/9/97
Comparison of Chula Vista Tax Rates with Other County Cities
It is very difficult to compare business license rates among various cities due to the different tax
structures. Most cities throughout the state and many cities in the County have tax structures
based on gross receipts. Within these tax structures, the percentage of tax often varies by business
type - those business types with higher profit margins generally pay a higher percentage of tax.
For example, professionals have a higher tax rate than retail businesses which pay a higher rate
than manufacturers.
Cities not using gross receipts tax rates also use different types of tax structures (e.g., flat, flat
based on receipts, flat plus per employee increment). For most businesses Chula Vista charges
a flat tax plus a per employee increment (which varies by business type). Chula Vista also offers
a lower rate for first year small businesses. San Diego offers a flat tax for businesses with 12 or
fewer employees but a flat tax with a per employee increment for larger companies. Due to these
variations in tax structure and rates within tax structures, how much tax a business pays in each
City will vary by the characteristics of the business. For some businesses Chula Vista's rate may
be the lowest where for others it would be at the mid-point. For example, Chula Vista's first year
tax rate on small businesses is the lowest in the County, for existing small businesses and
professionals it is a little below average and for large manufacturer's it is one of the lowest.
Since it is difficult to compare the many nuances, Table I provides a comparison of the annual
taxes three typical businesses would pay in the different cities within the County. The Table also
provides the percentage of General Fund revenues which are derived from business license taxes
in each of these cities. As the Table shows, Chula Vista's revenues from business license taxes
are lower than most cities in the County. A major impetus in changing the business license tax
rates in 1991, was this low ratio, which will continue to decrease because the flat tax does not
grow with inflation.
Alternatives
If Council does not wish to abate the tax to the current tax level (CY91 rates), the tax can be set
at any rate between the current CY91 tax rates and the scheduled CY98 tax rates. Table II,
presents four additional alternatives and the impact adoption of a particular alternative would have
on some typical businesses as well as General Fund revenue. The median County tax rates for
these business types is also shown for comparison purposes. The following alternatives are
presented:
A lternati ve # 1 .
Retain the current tax rate (which is the CY91 base tax rate which has
remained in effect for the vast majority of businesses from January 1991
until now). City revenues would remain unchanged at $740,000 annually.
Alternative #2:
Increase the current tax rate (the CY91 base tax rate) by 10%. City
/i~ /3
Page 4 Item
Meeting Date 12/9/97
revenue would increase $74,000 annually.
Alternative #3'
Increase the current tax rate (the CY91 base tax rate) by the cumulative
increase in the San Diego CPI for 1991 through 1997, or 16%. City
revenue would increase $118,000 annually.
Alternative #4'
Replace the current tax rate (CY9l base tax rate) with the scheduled 1992
base tax rate (Phase II of the three-phase increase-approximately 50%).
City revenue would increase $370,000 annually.
Alternative #5'
Replace the current tax rate (CY9l base tax rate) with the scheduled CY98
base tax rate (Includes all three phases plus annual escalators of 6%). City
revenue would increase $1,124,800 annually.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The $740,000 of business license tax revenue estimated in the current FY98 budget is based on
abating the CY98 tax rates to keep taxes at their current level. If the City Council decides not to
abate the tax, or only abate a portion of the tax, the City's General Fund revenue for this fiscal
year would increase. Each five percent increase to current tax levels would result in
approximately $37,000 of additional General Fund Revenue annually. Each five percent increase
would cost an average business (four employees) $3.92 more annually and each professional an
additional $5.25 annually. Fiscal impacts of some other potential alternatives are shown on Table
2.
Since all of the City's business licenses are renewable in January, any decision to abate the tax for
CY98 will only impact the current year's budget. Next fiscal year's revenues will be determined
by the CY99 tax rate.
o L ~~V'
1/1 SC~,.
~O~
JIr~i
RESOLUTION NO.
) 3':539
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ABATING THE BUSINESS LICENSE TAX
RATES FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1998, HOLDING CY 1998
TAX RATES AT THE CURRENT CY 1997 LEVELS
WHEREAS, the Business License Tax ordinance (effective
January 1, 1991) provides that the City Council may abate, for a
one year period, the scheduled business licese tax increase to any
level chosen as long as the tax rates do not fall below the 1991
level; and
WHEREAS, the business license taxes will more than double
for the vast majority of businesses on January 1, 1998 unless
Council passes a resolution to abate them to a lower level; and
WHEREAS, tax rates have remained the same since 1991 due
to annual abatements; and
WHEREAS, revenue estimates in the current budget were
based on current tax rates and abating the CY 1998 tax rates to
retain the current tax rate would not affect this year's budgeted
revenue, nor would it impact next year's budget; and
WHEREAS, notification of the public hearing were sent to
the Chamber of Commerce, the Broadway Business Association, the
Downtown Business Association and the Bonita Business and
Professional Association; and
discuss
increase
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held
the advisability of abating the
scheduled for Calendar Year 1998.
on December 9, 1997 to
business license tax
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula vista does hereby abate the Business License Tax
rates for Calendar Year 1998, holding CY 1998 tax rates at the CY
1997 levels.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Robert Powell, Director of
Finance
~~~
John M. Kaheny, City
Attorney
C:\rs\buslicen.tax
/ ~ -:5
T 318\11
-
(j tT1 ~ Z CIl 0
:r r (j '" (j 0
t'l = 0 '" e. '" n
~> $ n ., 0 ::l " " ~ 0.
" 5" ., 0 E: :!.
/') ~ 0 ~ 0 '"
0..< 51 '" 5. 00 !ii ::: -<
c < " or ~. Ii
Cl. = t'l 1;;- '" Cl. c: W ("J c: '"
~~ '" Cl. .,
~-~ - 0 0 '" ~. 0 "
.. n
(jO (jC'l :r
".- :rt'l
= >
S;Z =~
-3
-< ~~ ..., ...,
<;:;-
;- "'~ ~Cl ~Cl ~Cl ~Cl ~Cl ~Cl .... ..
- 0 "Cl "
.. 0 0 0 0 '"
- S- S- n ., n ., S- n ., S- n ., n ., n ., 0 (j
". ~.Sl ~. Sl ~. Sl ~'Sl ~'Sl ~.5;
'" " " " " ... ..
., ., ., - '" ;; '" ., ;; '" ., ;;'" ;; '" ;; 00 ..., r:;-
oo =
.. 5"
"
-
'"
Cl.
=
..
C/O
... '"
- Cl.
",- 00 ~ 0
-
~ ~ ~.... ::l
~ ='" Z
'" '" ., .... .... .,.... .... .... .... =3 =
="Cl 3
... ... '" '" .... .... w - .... ....- .... - - .... 8c~
w co, N..., .... 00 - ..., ..., Ul _ W ..., 0\ .... or
:-' ... '" 00 ..., :-' - !=> :-' ow .... Ul - :"- ~.... :t '"
... \c oUt 8 8 8 8 8 88 8 8 N Ul ~~~ .,
N ..., == Ul 0 0
. t'l
@.
~
- ~ ~
'" '" 0
NN
~ == .,
~ ='" ::l
t:! r '" .... .... .... .,.... 1(l .... .... .... =3 ::l
... .... .... 00 w - ....w Rl w '0 8'E. ~ =
..., - 00 '0 oc ..., '0 ..., Ul Ul N oc N =0," !!..
= w N Ul ..., - Ul W OUl Ul Ul 0- .... ~'< -
'" '" u. 8 8 8 8 8 88 8 8 N Ul ., ~ 2_ C'l
N ..., = Ul 0 ~ - .,
~
~
... "Cl ~
",- - =- rs:
'" ~'"
.; :; t:!.....~ '"
~ " "''" 0
'" =3[ :;;
'" '" "", .... .... .... .,.... .... .... ="Cl
... ... '" ... t .... N - - ....- .... .... - w '"
~ t N= oc w .... 0- Ul 0- w Ul oc w g Q CO ::l
"'''' ..., 0- .... .... 0- .... 0 Ul N Sf.... ::l
;... .... =0 8 8 8 Ul 8 88 8 8 8 8 ~~!!..
'" '" == 0
~~
-- '"
::l .., 0
~ '" ...
::l C'l
'" =
t""'"'"
-..... =
/') ., '"
'" 0 .,
N ... - 0 N N W N !=> w - w a 3 e-
'" N V. 8 '" ...,
Z oc N Ul W Ul oc oc .... -l==
co, ..... 00 '0 N 0\ W '0 00 0- -
~ - ~ "" "" "" "" "" "" "" <I'l <I'l <I'l .. = ::l
> ~ cr Q..
/i/~
I 318\11
-l
>
8'=
., t""
-<t'l
.. ...
., ..
~- (j
'" 0
=3
="Cl
'" .,
-- .,
::l __
n! '"
~ g
-lo
.... ...
...~ ~
__ ::l
::l =
"'!!..
'" t""
::l __
olil
i'q;
~ '"
>(j-l
o .,
= "
::l .."
~ !.
(jCl.
__ :r
:.~
~ =
-=
~ ~.
-::l
~~
~
Cl
Q()
Q\ ..,
I :g ~
r--
Q\ U"~ TABLE 2
~ ~~ '" '"
ai!~ ,...: '" .,., << t"-
'"
Il.l .. ~ :; '" ci ..q: - - ~
;: ~ ::!-;;; t- ZZ
~'"' '" .,., N
C
Il.l
... ...
~ .,.,i
~llol 0 88
"0 .~ ~ ~ - 0 8 t"-
oo .,.,
c ~oo'" ci 00 00 00
eo: '" '" v) i..... t-
::: .... '" oo~
'" .., N
Il.l . .
'" ... --
'" ....i +
~ ,,'" ~ 8 ~~
~~~ 8
.- . ,,:; 8 t"-
'" 00
;: !:l."'''' ..q: .,.,
I:Cl c:;: t- v) 00 t-
o, N .,., - t-
.., -'"
.to ...:+
.- ..
U ~""
('\")5'0 88
c :::. 8 t"-
o ~"'.. 8 ........
. i!~ 8 .,.,
'" - 0000 '"
c ~~ ~ 0 - N .,., - -
.. " N 00 -
0 '"'~ N N +
.- -
..... +
C.
0
.....
C
Il.l
E
..s
eo:
~
>C
eo:
Eo;
Il.l
'"
C
~
.-
...:l
'"
'"
Il.l
C
.-
'"
;:
I:Cl
'"
;:
o
.-
r..
eo:
;,
...
o
.....
CJ
eo:
c.
~
N
~
~
~
'" ~
"l:!1l"
.~ i!::::
~~ +
a
~:::-
..... ~ ~
~~.s
,g i! ..,
!:l.~g:
cab
~
.,.,
'"
-0
00
.,.,
t-
~
8
vi
-
-
~~
..,;..,;
- t-
00+
t"-
'"
'"
=
II>
..;
t-
*
= = =0 t"-
on g+
~ 0 -
vi ~ '"
.... = -
.... t-
><
~ ~
....
-< '-'
~ :.:i
.. ;g
'i:' -t> '"
-t> <:> .... &5
0 g tI)
= 0 ~ ~ a
= ..
g ... ~ e
= -
= .-i 8 ~ "-
II> '"
.... .... =
, , = ~ ::l
'" '" ;> =
'" '" II> ~
'" '" .., gj
s ... .... '"
c:> , '" '"
c. c. ~ , @ "0
8 8 S ~ '" =
-< > ::l
'" '" ~ "-
... = c. ....
- '" 8 U'S -;;;
'" - .... u
'" '" '" :s " '" ...
'" '" .., '" = 0.9
= '" - '" '"
"<ii = tI) ~ l? ~
"<ii ca ;l u
= '-' .... u
CQ = = CQ .S 0 "
CQ c:> c
'i .- 00"0 ~ u
'i '" e
.!! "" '"
- ,- '"
~ - to- '" -
~ c:> "" a = c
.. '" ~
ll. ;;.. "Z '-'
....
ro.w ~ "
u
. /6 ~?
TABLE 2
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item / 7
Meeting Date 12/09/97
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING: TO NOTICE USE OF FY 97/98 COPS FUNDING PER
CITIZENS' OPTION FOR PUBLIC SAFETY FOR LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
SERVICES.
/J. RESOLUTION 18'b':':?5 ACCEPTING $359,028.58 FOR LOCAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT FROM THE STATE BUDGET TO PAY FOR POLICE
PERSONNEL ($108,000) AND RELATED EQUIPMENT ($251,028.58).
.8/ RESOLUTION j8"8'3'4UTHORIZING THE CHIEF OF POLICE TO UTILIZE
(REPROGRAM) SAVINGS RESULTING FROM THE EQUIPMENT
PROCUREMENT PROCESS FOR ADDITIONAL UNSPECIFIED OFFICER
SAFETY EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES.
Chief of POliC~~..\,~ /n. I
City Manage~~ ~ ~
(4/5ths Vote: Yes.1L No_l
ITEM TITLE:
SUBMITTED BY:
The FY 97-98 state budget was adopted appropriating $359,028.58 to the City of Chula Vista
Police Department as a result of Assembly Bill 3229, Brulte. This bill allocates state money to
police departments for purposes stipulated by the Citizens Option for Public Safety (COPS)
Program.
RECOMMENDATION: 1) That Council hold a public hearing to notice use of COPS funding to pay
for "front line police services"; 21 that Council adopt the Resolution accepting $359,028.58 from
the state budget for Police personnel ($108,000) and related equipment ($251,028.58); and 3)
that Council authorize the Chief of Police to reprogram savings resulting from the equipment
procurement process for additional officer safety equipment and resources.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The state appropriation requires a Regional
Oversight Committee's approval of the funds prior to disbursement. In response, an Oversight
Committee was established in San Diego County. The Committee recommends approval of the
state local law enforcement funds as proposed. The San Diego County Oversight Committee is
comprised as follows:
Municipal Police Chief -
County Sheriff -
District Attorney -
County Administrative Office -
City Manager -
Richard P. Emerson
William Kolender
Paul Pfingst
Lawrence Prior III
James Bowersox, Poway
/7//
Page 2, Item _
Meeting Date 12/09/97
BACKGROUND:
During FY 96/97 the state appropriated funds for Local Law Enforcement services per AB 3229,
Chapter 134 statutes of 1996. In accordance with this legislation, the State has once again
appropriated funds to local law enforcement agencies. The City of Chula Vista's proportionate
share of these funds is $359,028.58. These funds are to be deposited in the City's Supplemental
Law Enforcement Fund (SLESF) and used for front line law enforcement personnel and equipment
needs as prescribed by AB 3229. Use of these funds must supplement and not supplant. These
funds have a twenty-five (25%) percent in-kind contribution requirement. In kind funds will be
staff's time associated with installation of communication line, Arjis computer ports, and training
of Universal Hire officers. The allocation of future funds is subject to State budget deliberations.
DISCUSSION:
The Police Department recommends that the City Council accept the state allocation and approve
use of the funds for personnel and equipment costs related to the expansion of the "front line
police services" as stipulated by the Citizens' Option for Public Safety (COPS) Program.
. Universal Hire Officer Salaries - $108,000 The Police Department is recommending use
of a portion of the state appropriation to offset the General Fund share of second year
officer salaries hired under the Universal Hire Program $108,000. In FY 96/97, six officers
were hired under the Universal Hire Program. The first year salaries were paid for by last
year's state appropriation and the Universal Hire Program. This year's state appropriation
authorizes agencies to continue to use state funds to offset the cost of officers hired under
the Universal Hire Program. It is anticipated these funds will continue through next year.
. Lab overtime for property update - $10,000 The department is currently in need of
additional space. In an effort to create the necessary space for proper property and
evidence storage, the department is proposing to pay experienced staff overtime to
complete the property purge. This is the most cost effective interim solution to provide
immediate improvements in overall control and accountability of the property room
operation.
. Local match for the new Local Law Enforcement Block Grants - $26,950 The 1997-98
LLEBG grants has a ten (10%) percent $26,950 local match requirement. As in the
previous year, staff is recommending the local match requirement be paid for by the state
appropriation. A total of $269,518 was awarded to the department from the Bureau of
Justice Assistance (BJA). These funds were allocated to the Police Department based on
a three-year average Part I Violent Crimes. The Police Department is proposing to use the
local match requirement to purchase new helmets and officer safety equipment. Currently
there is an insufficient number of helmets and related safety equipment to outfit police
personnel. The existing helmets are old and in many cases in need of repair. These funds
would allow the department to purchase helmets and related safety equipment needed for
front line law enforcement services.
. Communication - $25,000 and $7,000 Arjis Ports As part of the FY 97-98 LLEBG grant
allocation staff is proposing purchase of a live-scan laser fingerprint system which replaces
the process of manually obtaining and transmitting inked fingerprint cards. This new
/7-2
Page 3, Item _
Meeting Date 12/09/97
system will require the installation of new communication lines to access state and local
data bases. The cost of these lines is $14,000.
As part of the computer automated dispatch (CADI and mobile computer terminals (MCT)
project, ARJIS and SUN connecting will be expanded. ARJIS currently charges a joint
powers authority (JPAI fee which is relatively constant, a per device annual service charge
of $728 and a flat rate of .05 per transaction. The department currently has 28 active
nodes which cost $20,384 annually. Transaction and JPA fees bring us to an annual
budget of $147,000 for our present system. As part of PS 115, the CAD/MCT project, the
department's number of ARJIS nodes will increase from 28 to 37 nodes which will
increase our base ARJIS costs by approximately $7,000. In addition, increased use of high
speed T-1 data lines for both ARJIS, SUN and MCT transactions will result in a cost of
$11,000 for new data communication lines associated with the new CAD/MCT system.
. Equipment Procurement - $124,628.58 The following one-time equipment purchases are
proposed to be funded by the state appropriation:
Lanier Dictation - $7,200 The department is proposing purchase
of two Lanier Transcription/Dictation systems to be used by Police
Administration and the Internal Affairs Unit. Currently staff is using
a variety of hand-held recorders or written format which are difficult
to transcribe from. Purchase of this system will enhance staff's
ability to handle day to day operations more efficiently and save
time.
Two Presentation Systems - $20,000 The department is proposing
purchase of two presentation systems in an effort to present
information to Council, schools, the community and other agencies
in a more professional manner. As Council may recall during
Council's animal shelter deliberations, the department borrowed
equipment from various sources in order to be able to present the
information to Council in a professional and comparable format to
the County.
Duty Weapons - $60,000 The department is proposing to purchase
new duty weapons for all law enforcement personnel. This will
eliminate the need for officers to use personal guns and provide
standardization throughout the department.
Body Armor - $20,000 The department is proposing purchase of
body armor for law enforcement personnel. New vests would
enhance officer safety.
Policy & Procedures Manual - $17,378.58 The department's
existing Policy & Procedure Manual is in need of update and
revision. These funds will be used to update the manual and for
printing and binding costs associated with providing each Police
Department employee with a copy of the manual.
17~J
Page 4, Item _
Meeting Date 12/09/97
. Community Outreach & Strategic Planning - $50,000 These funds are proposed to be used
to address an area of concern as a result of the recently conducted community survey.
The results of the survey indicates that community awareness of the programs offered by
the Police Department can be significantly improved. As a result the Police Department
is proposing to use these funds for community outreach and long range planning of service
provision. San Diego State University (SDSUI Dean of the Department of Management and
Associate Graduate School of Business will assist the department with this project.
. Narcotics canine - $7,500 The department is proposing purchase of a narcotics canine and
associated training. This will enhance the department's ability to detect narcotic
substances and apprehend criminals.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Acceptance of the funds would make $359,028.58 available for local law enforcement needs
(described above). These funds are proposed to be used to offset the second year's cost of
officers hired under the Universal Hire Program, meet the local match requirement for the 1997/98
Local Law Enforcement Block Grant, community outreach and strategic planning and one-time
equipment purchases. These funds have a 25% in-kind contribution requirement. Consistent with
grant requirements, the funds are recommended to be used to supplement local law enforcement
and not supplant.
(iq) C:\wp51\scs\a113s\copsfund.113 [December 3, 1997 (2:58pm)]
) 7-zj
NEW 1997 STATE APPROPRIATION
$359,029
Revised 11-10.97
FY 97-98 GRANT PROPOSAL
Live Scan
Laser Fingerprint
$46,350
NEW 1997 LLEBG
$269,518
Patrol
Overtime
$80,000
LLEBG
Local Match
$26,950
Helmets &
Officer
Safety
Equip.
Universal Hire
2nd year
GF Share
$108,000
Body Armor &
Duty Weapons
$80,000
J7/~
~u?-
~
~~~~
CllY OF
CHULA VISTA
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
TELEFAX COVER LEITER
Telecopier No. (q19) 585-5612
DAlE:
)/);:I!<J :/
/ /
TO: Star News LeS!all Joann
FAX NO: (619) 426-6346
FROM: Carla J. Griffin
SUBJECT:_
W~' <<~
PUBUCATION DAlE:
c2
__ J~/;ZY(/)
TOTAL NO. PAGES (including cover):
If all pages are not received, please call Carla @ (619) 691-5041.
/7<1-/6
276 FOURTH AVE/CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910/(619) 691-50c1
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
BY THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL will hold
the public hearings to consider the following:
. Accepting $269,518 from the 1997 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant and
appropriating such funds for the following purposes: $10,000 drug court, $149,518
in overtime, and $110,000 for equipment procurement.
. Notice use of fiscal year 1997/98 Citizens Option for Public Safety (COPS) funding
for local law enforcement services and accepting $359,028.58 for local law
enforcement from the State budget to pay for Police personnel ($108,000) and
related equipment ($251,028.58).
For further information call Iracsema Quilantan in the Police Department at 691-5150.
Any petitions to be submitted to the City Council must be received by the City Clerk's office
no later than noon of the hearing date.
If you wish to challenge the City's action on these matters in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this
notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk's Office at or prior to the
public hearing.
SAID PUBLIC HEARINGS WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY COUNCIL on Tuesday,
December 9, 1997, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Services Building, 276
Fourth Avenue, at which time any person desiring to be heard may appear.
DATED: November 14, 1997
RESOLUTION NO. ;'~~:?~
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING $359,028.58 FOR LOCAL
LAW ENFORCEMENT FROM THE STATE BUDGET TO PAY
FOR POLICE PERSONNEL ($108,000) AND RELATED
EQUIPMENT ($251,028.58)
WHEREAS, the FY 97-98 budget was adopted appropriating
$359,028.58 to the City of Chula vista Police Department as a
result of Assembly Bill 3229, Brulte; and
WHEREAS, said bill allocates state money to police
departments for purposes stipulated by the citizens Option for
Public Safety (COPS) Program; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on
December 9, 1997 to notice use of COPS funding to pay for "front
line police services",
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
City of Chula vista does hereby accept $359,028.58 for Local Law
Enforcement from the State Budget to pay for Police Personnel
($108,000) and related equipment ($251,028.58).
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Richard P. Emerson, Chief of
Police
/ 7A - )
RESOLUTION NO. ;I~~~~
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING THE CHIEF OF POLICE TO
UTILIZE (REPROGRAM) SAVINGS RESULTING FROM THE
COMPETITIVE PROCUREMENT PROCESS FOR ADDITIONAL
UNSPECIFIED SAFETY EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES
WHEREAS, if savings result from the competitive
procurement process for the 1997 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant,
it is recommended that the Chief of Police be authorized to utilize
savings for additional unspecified officer safety equipment and
supplies.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
city of Chula vista does hereby authorize the Chief of Police to
utilize (reprogram) savings resulting from the competitive
procurement process for additional unspecified safety equipment and
supplies.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
torney
Richard P. Emerson, Chief of
Police
C:\rs\11ebg
/m~
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
Meeting Date 12\09\97
Jg'
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING: TO NOTICE ACCEPTANCE AND APPROPRIATION OF
LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS.
A. RESOLUTION Jg-~lc?PTING $269,518 FROM THE 1997 LOCAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT AND APPROPRIATING SUCH FUNDS FOR
THE FOLLOWING PURPOSES: $10,000 DRUG COURT, $149,518 IN
OVERTIME, AND $110,000 FOR EQUIPMENT PROCUREMENT.
[J. RESOLUTION J fft"'Y ~THORIZING THE CHIEF OF POLICE TO UTILIZE
(REPROGRAM) SAVINGS RESULTING FROM THE COMPETITIVE
PROCUREMENT PROCESS FOR ADDITIONAL UNSPECIFIED OFFICER
SAFETY EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES.
Chief of POliC~.:~\'E- /\lll
C;'V M'M'" JG ~ ~ J
(4/5ths Vote: Yes..x. No_l
ITEM TITLE:
SUBMITTED BY:
The Police Department has recently received notice of a 1997 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant
(LLEBG) Award in the amount of $269,518 from the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA). These
funds were allocated to the Police Department based on a three-year average Part 1 Violent
Crimes. Part 1 Violent Crimes are murder and non-negligent manslaughters, forcible rape, robbery,
and aggravated assault as reported by the FBI. Acceptance and appropriation of these funds
requires a public hearing per stipulations of the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council accept the $269,518 in Local Law Enforcement Block
Grant funds and amend the FY 97-98 budget as follows:
1. Appropriate $10,000 from the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant to fund a drug court
for the South Bay.
2. Appropriate $80,000 from the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant for patrol and $69,518
for investigative overtime.
3. Appropriate $110,000 from the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant for equipment
procurement.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Local Law Enforcement Block Grant requires
a local advisory board approval of the use of funds prior to disbursement. A local advisory board
consisting of the specific composition required by the grant was set up to review the grant
application. The local advisory board recommends approval of the Local Law Enforcement Block
Grant disbursements as proposed. The local advisory board is comprised of one representative
from the following agencies:
Local Law Enforcement Agency -
Prosecutor's Office -
Court System -
School System -
Non Profit -
Rick Emerson, CVPD
Pete Deddeh
Judge Jesus Rodriguez
Lowell Billings
Pam Smith
/%~I
Page 2, Item _
Meeting Date 12\09\97
BACKGROUND:
The Omnibus Fiscal Year 1997 Appropriation Act, Public Law 104-208 provides for funding under
the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program, established within the Bureau of Justice
Assistance (BJA) to local law enforcement agencies. The City of Chula Vista is eligible to receive
an award of $269,518 under this program. Funding may be used for seven purpose areas, which
address a wide variety of activities from increasing personnel and equipment resources for local
law enforcement to developing and supporting programs to enhance effective criminal justice
processes. The program's goal is to provide local jurisdictions with opportunities to reduce crime
and improve public safety through the implementation of diverse strategy, hiring, training of
additional local law enforcement officers, paying overtime, procuring equipment and establishing
or supporting drug courts.
Grant Reauirements
The $269,518 grant allocation has a 10% I $26,900) local match requirement. Staff is
recommending the local match be appropriated from the new State appropriation for local law
enforcement. The LLEBG funds must supplement and not supplant. The funds must be used to
reduce crime and improve public safety through activities such as hiring, training, and employing
new local law enforcement officers and support staff as well as procuring equipment, and
technological advances directly associated with local law enforcement.
DISCUSSION:
The Police Department and advisory board recommend use of the funds in the following manner:
Local Law Enforcement Support - $149.518
. Appropriate $80,000 for additional patrol overtime and $69,518 for additional investigative
overtime. These funds are necessary to offset overtime expenditures necessary for
minimum coverage due to high turnover as a result of retirements, injuries and computer
automated dispatch (CAD) and mobile data computer (MDC) training.
Eauipment Procurement - $110.000
Appropriate $110,000 for procuring equipment, additional technological advances related to basic
local law enforcement functions.
. Live-Scan Finger Print System, $45,000 Live-Scan replaces the process of manually
obtaining and transmitting inked fingerprint cards. The benefit of Live-Scan includes:
substantial reduction in the imperfections and flaws
which commonly occur in traditionally rolled inked
fingerprint cards,
significant improvement of fingerprint database
quality and identification accuracy,
immediate transmission of fingerprint cards, resulting
in faster identification of criminals.
/??;L
Page 3, Item _
Meeting Date 12\09\97
. Evidence Tracking System & Inventory System, $23,650 The new evidence tracking
system will bring many necessary improvements to the operation and management of the
property department. Some are listed below:
no longer hostage to a system with no maintenance
or upgrade potential,
new system will comply with the unique operational
flow and security requirements of Chula Vista Police
Department,
ability to instantly know what is in any location of
the property facility,
inventory reports will show what should be in
property location and what is missing,
custom reports capability,
easy modification of evidence and property
information,
high security level,
state of the art bar-coding,
monthly audit by quantity and category,
custom property release forms,
custom officer disposition requests,
maintains firearms, currency, and narcotics disposal
lists.
. Audio Equipment and Programmable VCR's, $5,000 - This equipment will be used in
cooperation with the City's Information Office in order to better capture news stories that
involve City activities. This equipment will provide the department and City with the
capability of hooking up several VCRs to the same television and recording all the news
stations that broadcast the news at different hours of the day. Additionally, this
equipment will be used for recording and dubbing training programs. The department
currently has satellite capability that this equipment will allow for recording of numerous
informational teleconferences and programs broadcast on law enforcement topics that are
excellent training tools. This audio equipment will also enhance the department's ability
to take and archive tapes as evidence in a crime as well as dub them for court and
investigation purposes. For example, in child abuse and sex crimes cases, Children's
Hospital records their interview with the child and it would benefit our investigation to be
able to dub that tape.
. Microcassette Recorders, $15,518 - Purchase of microcassette recorders would transition
the department to smaller and better quality recorders. The small hand held recorders
patrol officers and investigators to carry them easily to facilitate recording of conversations
with persons they may come in contact with on their investigations. In addition, these
devices will be used to dictate reports to be transcribed by transcriptionists. The type of
recorders used now are larger and more difficult to carry when in the field. Additionally,
tape storage requires more space as opposed to the microcassette recorders and the old
recorders run on batteries and are not rechargeable which are more costly to operate.
Included in the purchase will be transcription adapters so that our present machines will
be able to handle the smaller microcassettes.
} fY- 3
Page 4, Item _
Meeting Date 12\09\97
. Automation, $4,300 - These funds will allow the department to update software. Many
of our existing software programs are in need of an update.
. Skel1y Recorder, $700 - Purchase of this equipment will enhance the department's
recordings and result in clear and concise documents. The department currently uses
hand-held recorders which are difficult to transcribe from and require frequent changing of
tapes, thus, disrupting skelly hearings.
. Spike Strips, $3,900 - The department is requesting purchase of spike strip systems to
be placed in 9 units as a vehicle stopping device. These spike strips would increase the
department's efficiency in pursuits. We currently have no vehicle stopping technology to
handle a pursuit situation. The systems are recommended by the Pursuit Management
Task Force.
. Homicide (Cold Case) Follow-up, $11,100 - The department has a need to review prior
years' homicide cases that remain unsolved. This allocation will fund hourly costs
associated with additional investigation on these cases.
DruQ Courts
Staff is recommending the appropriation of $10,000 for the purpose of establishing a Drug Court
in the South Bay. This program provides intense follow-up monitoring and assistance to those
who qualify for other than standard incarceration. The program exists in other parts of the County
and is being implemented in South Bay as well. Monies would be used for those arrestees from
our City who qualify for this highly structured program. Success rates in other programs indicate
that this has a positive vane to our community.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Patrol Overtime
Staff is treating this as a one-year block grant allocation. Therefore, the $80,000 appropriation
to patrol overtime and $69,518 to Investigative overtime will be used in this fiscal year to offset
increased overtime as a result of turnover and injuries. Upon exhaustion of these funds, the Patrol
and Investigative overtime accounts will return to their original budgeted levels. Necessary future
increases will be requested during the FY 98-99 budget deliberations. In the interim, the Police
Department is working on filling vacancies and will continue to explore other avenues to minimize
the impact of overtime to the General Fund.
Equipment Procurement
The $110,000 allocation for equipment procurement will be used for one-time equipment
purchases. There are no reoccurring costs proposed as a result of procurement of equipment.
DruQ Courts
This is a one-time allocation for the creation of a South Bay Drug Court.
(iq) C:\wp51\scs\a113s\97I1ebg.113 [November 18,1997 (12:52pm)J
/!{-tj
NEW 1997 STATE APPROPRIATION
$359,029
Revised 11-10-97
FY 97-98 GRANT PROPOSAL
Live Scan
Laser Fingerprint
$46,350
NEW 1997 LLEBG
$269,518
Patrol
Overtime
$80,000
Investigation's
Overtime
$69,518
LLEBG
Local Match
$26,950
Helmets &
Officer
Safety
Equip.
Universal Hire
2nd year
GF Share
$108,000
Body Armor &
Duty Weapons
$80,000
/S~3
RESOLUTION NO. /3'8'3?
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING $269,518 FROM THE 1997
LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT AND
APPROPRIATING SUCH FUNDS FOR THE FOLLOWING
PURPOSES: $10,000 DRUG COURT, $149,518 IN
OVERTIME, AND $110,000 FOR EQUIPMENT
PROCUREMENT
WHEREAS, the police Department has recently received
notice of a 1997 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) Award in
the amount of $269,518 from the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA);
and
WHEREAS, these funds were allocated to the Police
Department based on a three-year average Part 1 Violent Crimes such
as murder and non-negligent manslaughters, forcible rape, robbery,
and aggravated assault as reported by the FBI; and
WHEREAS, acceptance and appropriation
requires a public hearing per stipulations of
Enforcement Block Grant.
of these funds
the Local Law
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the city Council of the
City of Chula vista does hereby accept $269,518 from the 1997 Local
Law Enforcement Block Grant and appropriating such funds for the
following purposes: $10,000 Drug Court for the South Bay, $80,000
for patrol and $69,518 for investigative overtime and $110,000 for
equipment procurement.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Richard P. Emerson, Chief of
police
;%/9-')
RESOLUTION NO. J ~ 'if.3 ?'
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING THE CHIEF OF POLICE TO
UTILIZE (REPROGRAM) SAVINGS RESULTING FROM THE
COMPETITIVE PROCUREMENT PROCESS FOR ADDITIONAL
UNSPECIFIED SAFETY EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES
WHEREAS, if savings result from the competitive
procurement process for the 1997 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant,
it is recommended that the Chief of Police be authorized to utilize
savings for additional unspecified officer safety equipment and
supplies.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
city of Chula vista does hereby authorize the Chief of Police to
utilize (reprogram) savings resulting from the competitive
procurement process for additional unspecified safety equipment and
supplies.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Richard P. Emerson, Chief of
Police
~ Ie;:
Kaheny, City
C:\rs\llebg
JgJ B~ /
~If~
~
~~~~
ellY OF
(HUlA VISTA
OFFICE OF mE CITY CLERK
TELEFAX COVER LETTER
Telecopier No. (619) 585-5612
DATE:
/ / //9/7/)
/ I
TO:
star News Leoal I Chrissv
FAX NO: (619) 426-6346
FROM: Carla J. Griffin
SUBJECT: rZ-K~. ~~
PUBLICATION DATE:
//;6:2./'17
/ /
y
3
///.2.9/17
/ /
TOTAL NO. PAGES (including cover):
If all pages are not received, please call Carla @ (619) 691-5041.
/9 -
276 FOURTH AVENUE' CHULA VISTA' CALIFORNIA 91910 . (619) 69'-5041
~ PaJ..:-.n.~,,-
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
BY THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL will hold
the public hearings to consider the following:
.. A proposed agreement to grant a modified cable system franchise to CoxCom
Inc., a Delaware corporation, dba Cox Communications San Diego
Ordinance amending the franchise agreement with Cox Communications, adopting
a franchise fee of 5%, extending the franchise an additional ten years through the
year 2020, and making various other changes in terms and conditions. (First reading)
Ordinance amending Section 5.52.010 of the Municipal Code to conform the fees
assessable to cable franchisees and other video programming providers to those
allowed by state and federal law and making other technical changes.
The Ordinance modifying the franchise will only be considered on December 9, 1997,
if the City Council adopts on November 25, 1997, a Resolution of Intention to adopt
same and formally sets the public hearing date.
The terms and conditions of the modified franchise are proposed to include:
Increasing the franchise fee from 3% to 5%, extending the term by 10 years,
providing the city with the hardware and software necessalY to implement an
additional phase of the Smart Community program, providing ten cable modems for
city facilities (e.g. libraries, recreation centers), providing a PEG (Public,
Educational, Governmental) grant of $100,000, specifying the distances, development
densities or timing within which it is expected that service will be provided at no
significant cost, requiring a system and services review in the year 2006, specifying
the circumstances under which additional services available elsewhere in the County
would be made available to Chula Vista subscribers, providing for good faith
negotiation of future technology linkages or other issues of mutual interest, providing
the city with playback equipment for the broadcast of City Council meetings,
specifying minimum customer service standards and liquidated damages if they are
not met, providing for subscriber notification of options to block audio/visual
transmissions of unwanted programming, amending text regarding renegotiation
intervals, amending termination provisions and disposition of the franchise property
in such case, amending text regarding rate regulation authority, providing that there
shall be no offset or credit on the franchise fee, setting the limitations of the grant
of franchise and right reserve to city, specifying the location of franchise properties
and the standards for their construction or maintenance or relocation, amending
insurance and liability provisions, amending text regarding inspection of property and
records, providing for resolution of issues in conflict or held to be invalid, making
representations and warranties as to the franchise, agreeing to provisions of force
majeure and time being of the essence, and clarifying existing definitions and
administrative provisions.
.. Existing and proposed rates and charges for Cox Communications' Basic Service
Tier and associated equipment and Cable Programming Services Tier, as submitted
by Cox Communications to the City via Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
Forms 1235, 1240 and 1205.
Resolution (1) Approving various proposed cost-based decreases for installations
and associated equipment; (2) Approving proposed cost-based increases in the
Maximum Permitted Rates for the Basic Service Tier ($2.86); and (3) Approving
proposed cost-based increases in the Maximum Permitted Rates for the Cable
Programming Services Tier ($0.46); and (4) Approving proposed upgrade-related
increases in the Maximum Permitted Rates for the Basic Service Tier ($1.57).
These items regard maximum rates only. The effective date of any actual rate
increases within said maximums would be subject to discretionary action by Cox and
thirty days notice to subscribers. Items 1-3 are per Forms 1205 and 1240 and have
been found to be appropriately justified adjustments based on programming costs
within the guidelines set by the FCC. Item 4 is based on an FCC decision rejecting
Chula Vista's complaint regarding upgrade-related increases in CPS rates and
decreasing Cox's requested upgrade-related Basic rate increase request from $1.59
to $1.57 to reflect adjustments to the accounting of income tax allowances.
For further information or questions, please contact Gerald Young, Principal Management
Assistant, at 585-5649.
Any petitions to be submitted to the City Council must be received by the City Clerk's office
no later than noon of the hearing date.
If you wish to challenge the City's action on these matters in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this
notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk's Office at or prior to the
public hearing.
SAID PUBLIC HEARINGS WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY COUNCIL on Tuesday,
December 9, 1997, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Services Building, 276
Fourth Avenue, at which time any person desiring to be heard may appear.
DATED: November 19, 1997
NOTICE OF SECOND PUBLIC HEARING
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AMENDMENT TO FY 1997-98 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
ANNUAL PLAN
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL will hold a
second public hearing to consider the following:
. Proposed amendment to the FY 1997-98 CDBG Annual Plan to incorporate a
Section 108 loan.
Information on the amendment to the FY 1997-98 CDBG Annual Plan and the
proposed application for a Section 108 loan is available for examination at the
Community Development Department, 276 Fourth Avenue and the City of Chula Vista
Library, 356 F Street. Please call Debra Anderson at 476-5355, for more information.
Any petitions to be submitted to the City Council must be received by the City Clerk's
office no later than noon of the hearing date.
If you wish to challenge the City's action on these matters in court, you may be
limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing
described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk's
Office at or prior to the public hearing.
SAID PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY COUNCIL on Tuesday, December
16, 1997 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Public Services Building, 276
Fourth Avenue, at which time any person desiring to be heard may appear.
DATED:
November 26, 1997
Chris Salomone
Community Development Director
H:\HOME\COMDEV\ANDERSON\HUD
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item ~
Meeting Date 12/09/97
ITEM TITLE
A. Public Hearing: Regarding existing and proposed rates and charges for Cox
Communications' Basic Service Tier and associated equipment and Cable
Programming Services Tier, as submitted by Cox Communications to the City via
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Forms 1235, 1240 and 1205.
B. Resolution /?fIr -3 '1
1. Approving various proposed cost-based decreases for installations and
associated equipment; and
2. Approving proposed cost-based increases in the Maximum Permitted Rates
for the Basic Service Tier ($2.86); and
3. Approving proposed cost-based increases in the Maximum Permitted Rates
for the Cable Programming Services Tier ($0.46); and
4. Approving proposed upgrade-related increases in the Maximum Permitted
Rates for the Basic Service Tier ($1.57).
SUBMITTED BY: Principal Management si t t Y oun~
REVIEWED BY: City Manage~ ~ff (4/5ths Vote: Yes_ NoX)
Items 1, 2, and 3 represent Cox Communic ons' annual cost-based requests for increases in their
maximum permitted rates. Such increases are allowed by the FCC as long as they conform to
a formula of inflationary and programming expenses. Chula Vista's consultant reviewed these
calculations and found them to be appropriately justified. Item 4 is based on an analogous FCC
decision rejecting Chula Vista's 1996 complaint regarding upgrade-related increases in expanded
basic services. Although the appeal on upgrade-related increases in basic services is still pending
(since November of 1996), basic rates were computed on the same upgrade-based formula as the
expanded rates and were also reduced by the FCC in the process of their expanded tier decision.
It is on the basis of this FCC action, which was precedent not available at the time Council
initially considered the upgrade, that Cox has requested that this be reconsidered and that staff
recommends the item for approval.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council conduct the public hearing and adopt the resolution: 1)
Approving various proposed cost-based decreases for installations and associated equipment; 2)
Approving proposed cost-based increases in the Maximum Permitted Rates for the Basic Service
Tier ($2.86); 3) Approving proposed cost-based increases in the Maximum Permitted Rates for
the Cable Programming Services Tier ($0.46); and 4) Approving proposed upgrade-related
increases in the Maximum Permitted Rates for the Basic Service Tier ($1.57). Regarding item
4, various proposed alternative actions have also been presented for Council consideration.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: N/A
Local vs. federal roles
The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 divides regulatory authority into local (Basic
Cable) and federal (expanded/Cable Programming Services or "CPS") jurisdictions. It is Chula
Vista's responsibility as a local franchising authority to regulate Basic Cable rates, assist with
/9~/
, Page 2
12/09/97
Item
Meeting Date
customer complaints as appropriate, and file expanded tier complaints with the FCC as
appropriate. Basic service typically provides "must carry" programming, such as local networks
and public and government access channels. The expanded tier contains all other channels (e.g.
A&E, CNN, MTV) that are not marketed "a la carte" for a premium price (e.g. HBO, Showtime).
Under federal regulations, cable companies are allowed to justify rate requests according to
specified forms. In this case, Cox Communications is proposing increases in their Maximum
Permitted Rates (MPR) on the basis of both a recent system upgrade (fiber-optics, redundant
wiring, additional head-ends/nodes) and inflationary and programming costs. They are also
proposing various decreases in equipment rental and installation rates.
In reviewing rates, cities are not required to determine what the exact rates should be, just
whether the charges as proposed are appropriate or not. The FCC is the final arbiter in expanded
tier matters and appeals of local franchise authority actions on basic rates.
It should be noted that all of the rates in question are maximum permitted rates and that Cox
typically sets its actual rates below these maximums. For example, the current Cox Standard
(basic + expanded) maximum rate in Chula Vista is $30.40, but Cox is charging $28.95. Cox's
goal in seeking approval for their various filings is to reach consistent rates countywide, which
would again be below the maximums (See Table 3), but would allow them to simplify their
marketing and billing activities.
Last vear's actions
In October 1996, the City Council, staff and consultant (Public Knowledge, Inc.) conducted an
in-depth review of Cox Communications filings with the City and the FCC regarding proposed
increases in the maximum permitted rates for basic and expanded cable services. While
approving certain cost-based rate increases and service/equipment decreases, the City ruled against
two related items that involved recovery of upgrade-related costs. The first of these attempted
to recover that portion of the cost associated with expanded tier channels. The second was aimed
at recovering the equivalent portion associated with basic cable channels.
At the time, the FCC's Form 1235 process for analyzing upgrade-related increases was new and
there was no applicable precedent indicating how the FCC rules would be interpreted. Based on
that lack of clear direction from the FCC, and concurring in the recommendations of staff and
the city's consultant, Council denied an increase in basic cable maximum rates and filed a formal
complaint with the FCC regarding federally-regulated expanded tier rates. The expanded rate
issue was resolved fairly quickly--in approximately one month--in favor of Cox (See Table I and
Attachment #4). The basic rate issue has been pending for more than a year without a projected
date for a resolution. In fact, the average waiting time for such complaints to be heard is
approximately two years.
This vear's cost-related submittals (Form 1240. 1205)
Cox has filed its annual inflation/cost-related rate filings (Form 1240 and Form 1205) with the
City, to be considered as part of their planned February rate increases. These filings ask for an
/9.. .2
, Page 3
12/09/97
Item
Meeting Date
increase in the maximum permitted basic rate to $12.60 and expanded rate to $21.12, for a
combined total of $33.72. Both of these filings have been reviewed by Public Knowledge, a
consultant jointly hired by the City and County of San Diego, Chula Vista, National City, Poway,
La Mesa and Imperial Beach. The consultant found the requested cost-based increases in service
rates and decreases in installation and equipment rates to be appropriately justified (See
Attachment #6).
One major reason for the cost increase this year is the cost of the Padres channel being added to
the basic service level in 1997. This has been a very popular channel for Cox, but also one that
bears a significant cost.
The equipment and installation costs would decrease, with the hourly service charge decreasing
from $31.03 to $30.49 and basic converter box rental decreasing from $1.40 to $0.79 per month.
Subiect of last vear's denial (Form 1235)
In completing their 1995 system upgrade, Cox added fiber-optic technology to their system and
increased broadcasting capacity from 450 Megahertz (MHz) to 750 MHz. Of this increase, only
100 of the 300 MHz was initially put into use in the way of new channels, enhanced signal
quality, etc. The remaining 200 MHz remained available to accommodate future channel
additions. This would tend to indicate that the maximum share of the upgrade to be passed along
to existing channels might be 33%, rather than the 73%-80% proposed by Cox. Faced with a
lack of information about how the FCC's new Form 1235 rules would allocate the cost of the
upgrade to existing channels, the City denied the basic rate increase and filed a complaint about
the expanded rates. Both matters then went to the FCC for a final decision.
In their decision on the related expanded service complaint, the FCC held that the formula for
assigning upgrade costs to existing channels which was used (which was the same one used for
basic rates) was not umeasonable. The FCC did make one adjustment in Cox's accounting of
income tax expenses. This adjustment was made in both Cox's expanded rates and their basic
rates. The result was a $0.04 decrease in maximum permitted expanded rates and a $0.02
decrease in the maximum permitted basic rates (dropping from $1.59 to $1.57). While a basic
rate appeal is still outstanding, this initial action by the FCC found the formula used in spreading
costs to both the expanded and basic cases to be acceptable.
Action Response Basic Expanded
Initial Submittal --- $1.73 $4.03
Questions by Cox revised submittal to amend $1.59 $3.52
Consultant accounting for advertising revenues
Remaining question Complaint/Appeal filed; FCC decision on $1.57 $3.48
re: existing channel expanded service amended both expanded
share of upgrade and basic rates for income tax expense
Table I: History of Rate Filings/Decisions
/~.3
Item , Page 4
Meeting Date 12/09/97
Cox had argued in defense of their initial rate formula that there were benefits to customers in
terms of enhanced reliability and signal quality. At the time, Cox reported a decrease in service
outages from 14,909 to 700 customer hours per month. Staff was hesitant to draw conclusions
about reliability improvements based on limited post-upgrade data (4 months), instead looking
at more modest improvements like the signal to noise ratio (6.6%) and national averages for post-
upgrade reliability improvements (0.05%).
Now that an additional year of data is available, it appears that the last 15+ months have yielded
an average 84.2% decrease in service outages. This could also tend to support Cox's contention
that their formula passed along a reasonable upgrade cost based on the benefit received. Another
way of looking at that improvement, however, is that the number of hours of uninterrupted
service has increased incrementally. Since the number of such broadcast hours is much greater
than the number of outage hours, the percentage change is more modest.
Measure of Improvement Initial Post- Percentage
Upgrade Improvement
Customer Hours of Outage 12,128 1,910 84.2%
Customer Hours of Non-Outage 24,932,272 24,942,490 0.04%
Broadcasting 1
Carrier to Noise Ratio (Signal 45 C/N 48 C/N 6.6%
clarity)
Table 2: Measurements of Improvement
Due to the varying interpretations of the customer outage statistics, Public Knowledge
recommends the greater significance be ascribed to carrier to noise ratios as a measure of picture
quality (e.g. lack of graininess, "snow," or other interference; See consultant comments below).
Why take action now?
Cox appealed the City's basic rate decision more than a year ago, on which the FCC has yet to
rule specifically. It did, however, issue a ruling on the related expanded basic rates and the
appropriateness of Cox's method of assigning costs to (basic and expanded) existing channels,
which was the remaining issue that led to the filing of the complaint and appeal with the FCC
(See Table 1), adjusting both basic and expanded rates accordingly. It would be logical to
assume that the final ruling on basic cable rates, when it is forthcoming, would be along the same
lines and once again overturn the City's action. Although the City could certainly wait
(potentially another year) for that FCC decision to be reached, it may be more appropriate to
accept the initial ruling as the indication from the federal government about how such formulas
would be considered that was not available when Council last considered this issue.
1 Assumes a maximum number of customer hours of broadcasting of 34,645 Chula Vista
customers x 24 hrs x 30 days = 24,944,400 customer hours/month.
/7-(
Item , Page 5
Meeting Date 12/09/97
Council may recall that prior to the actual filing of a formal complaint last year, the FCC was
unwilling to discuss the particulars of how a specific complaint might be judged. With the
decision received on the expanded rates, the City now has a precedent on which to make a
decision. Cox is requesting that Council act on that precedent rather than continue to make Cox
wait for a second ruling.
Assuming on the other hand that the FCC might eventually rule in the City's favor, the question
is whether it is appropriate to make a decision based on the initial FCC decision and data
regarding reliability and signal improvements or to require Cox to wait until a final FCC
determination is made. At the time of last year's hearing, there was some input from Council
that a mediated solution or some other resolution short of a protracted legal appeal might be the
better course of action. Council also indicated a preference for handling such matters at the local
rather than federal level. Staff indicated that there was insufficient information to make that a
real possibility last year. However, in light of the initial FCC decision, Cox has made a
reasonable request that would save them any additional legal expense to present their case in their
appeal. Staff would recommend that Council consider this information and approve the upgrade
related increase in the maximum permitted rates.
Chula Vista has the option of waiting for the decision to be made by the FCC or acting on the
basis of the ruling made on the same upgrade-related increase and approving that increase in
maximum rates now. Were this to take place, Cox's authority to raise its rates in Chula Vista
would still be less than it is in most other San Diego County jurisdictions. Staff recommends this
maximum permitted rate be approved based on the FCC's actions to date and the desire not to
delay action on this matter, potentially for another year.
FCC Comments
As stated earlier, the FCC ruled in favor of Cox on the expanded portion of the upgrade-based
rate increase. In doing so, they also made an adjustment to the basic rate request (which was
submitted according to the same formulas on the same FCC filing). Officially, however, basic
rate appeals are handled by a different office at the FCC, and this case is still pending. John
Norton of the FCC's local rate appeal office refused to speculate as to when a decision may be
released, but the typical waiting time for such a decision is two years. Cox has requested, based
on the significant delay in FCC action, that the City use the related expanded tier ruling as a
guide and act to approve the basic rate request accordingly.
Alternative Actions: Consultant Comments
Notwithstanding the FCC's ruling on the spread of costs to existing channels via the expanded
tier decision and the related amendment to basic rates, Jay Smith at Public Knowledge advised
that the City continue to wait for a second FCC decision. This stems both from giving the City
the benefit of a definitive ruling and from the belief that the separate staff at the FCC who deal
with basic rate appeals and expanded tier rate complaints may view the same formula differently.
Based on the data that are available, however, he would give the most weight to the improvement
in signal quality. System reliability, when considering the total number of broadcast hours, would
/9~
Item , Page 6
Meeting Date 12/09/97
tend to be a very small percentage increase. Signal quality, however, with an improvement from
45 carrier/noise ratio to 48 would represent a 6.6% increase. This would be the most measurable
way of relating the upgrade to improvements for basic cable customers.
Working from a current maximum permitted rate of $9.74 for basic and a 6.6% increase, he
arrived at a figure of $0.65. This rate would be another alternative for Council's consideration,
as would taking no action at this time and continuing to await further FCC rulings. If awaiting
an FCC decision is the preferred direction, Council could also request that the FCC expedite their
processing of the appeal so that a final decision is not unnecessarily delayed.
Likelv imoacts on rates
Regardless of what the City does on the upgrade-related issue, customers wi11likely see the same
rate actions from Cox. The rates being proposed countywide (effective in most other jurisdictions
on November 15) are $13 for basic cable and $30.95 for expanded service. While Chula Vista's
current rates are $9.74 and $28.95, the maximum permitted rates are $9.74 and $30.40. Thus,
even without any action by the City, Cox could reach $30.40/month. Adding in the cost-based
increases which have been found to be appropriately justified, Cox could raise its rates to $12.60
and $33.72/month.
Comparing the maximum and proposed actual rates, Chula Vista's basic and expanded rates
would be below the maximum rates by $1.19 and $3.17, respectively, or a total of $4.36.
MAXIMUM BASIC CABLE CPS (EXPANDED TOTAL: BASIC +
PERMITTED RATES SERVICE) EXPANDED (Cox
Standard)
CURRENT $9.74 $20.66 $30.40
MAXIMUM
PROPOSED 1240 $2.86 (29.4% $0.46 (2.2% $3.32 (10.9%
FORM INCREASES increase) increase) increase)
SUBTOTAL $12.60 $21.12 $33.72
PROPOSED
PENDING 1235 $1.57 (12.5% n1a $1.57 (4.6%
APPEAL increase) increase)
TOTAL POTENTIAL $14.19 $21.12 $35.29
MAXIMUM RATE
Table 3: Maximum and Actual Rates
)9-~
Item , Page 7
Meeting Date 12/09/97
ACTUAL RATES BASIC CABLE EXPANDED TOTAL: COX
STANDARD
CURRENT $9.74 $19.21 $28.95
PROPOSED TOTAL $3.26 (33.5% -$1.26 (6.6% $2.00 (6.9%
INCREASE/ increase) decrease) increase)
DECREASE
NEW TOTAL $13.00 $17.95 $30.95
PROPOSED (2/98)
No action is required by the City to allow Cox to implement these cost-based changes (Form
1240 rate increases and Form 1205 equipment/installation decreases). If the City were to hold
off on a decision on the cost-based increases and receive complaints from the public following
the implementation of any actual rate increase, the City would still have 180 days from the time
the rate increase was implemented to file a complaint with the FCC. Assuming Cox passes along
their next rate change in February, Council would still be free to act on these rates until August,
1998. However, since the Public Knowledge report indicates that these rates are appropriately
justified and would likely be upheld by the FCC if challenged by the City, staffs
recommendation is that those rates be approved now.
With these changes, Cox could reach their targeted countywide rate of $30.95 without any City
action on the upgrade-related basic rate. This could be done with rates of $12.60 for basic cable
and $18.35 for the expanded tier. What this would not accommodate would be Cox's desire to
reach rate consistency countywide on both the basic and expanded components of their rates for
simplification and potential cost savings in their marketing and billing. This is the reason for
their request for reconsideration.
If the upgrade-related increase were to be granted, the rates would be $13 for basic cable and
$17.95 for expanded. The approval of the upgrade-based increase would thus not impact the
overall $30.95 "Cox Standard" rate, but would represent a recognition on the City's part that the
direction from the FCC that was being sought last year has, in fact, been received. It would
actually lead to a $0.40 increase (3.2%) in basic rates beyond the $12.60 level otherwise allowed,
with a corresponding decrease in the charge for the expanded tier.
Another factor in the approval of the upgrade-based increase would be that it would allow this
change in rates to take place in a timely manner. Cox typically changes rates once per year.
This avoids confusion on the amounts due and protects the company from undue criticism for
successive increases, regardless of their size. By acting on the basic rate request now, the City
would enable Cox to match its Chula Vista rates to those in the rest of the County without
continuing to wait for a second FCC decision and for a subsequent rate increase interval.
/9-7
Item , Page 8
Meeting Date 12/09/97
Basic-onlv snbscribers
Of Cox's 34,645 residential subscribers in Chula Vista, only 1,000 (or 2.9%) subscribe to basic
cable only. The reasons for a basic only subscription vary---from economic reasons to the desire
to obtain local broadcast channels as a supplement to direct broadcast satellite service.
Basic service provides 23 channels, including local networks (such as KFMB, KNSD, KPBS,
KUSI), public and government access channels, the Padres channel, San Diego's News Channel
(Ch. 15), and three Spanish language channels. Expanded service provides an additional 42
channels of specialty programming, including ESPN, CNN, Lifetime, AMC, the Disney Channel,
MTV and Bravo. Although some customers have indicated a desire to receive just a limited
number of these expanded tier channels, FCC rules allow cable companies to market non-local
channels in packages rather than "a la carte."
Cable companies walk a fine line between customers who want just their local channels on basic
cable (due to signal problems with traditional antennas) and those who want a wide variety of
programming at a lower price. The non-local channels carried on Cox's basic tier are WGN,
TBS, QVC, the Weather Channel and C-SPAN. There is no requirement placed on cable
companies to add to or limit the size of their basic cable channel lineup. Basic cable is also not
considered a "lifeline" or low-income level of service. Rather, it is the level of service containing
at a minimum all local broadcast channels and which is required for subscription to any additional
channels or levels of service. If Cox preferred, they could do as Chula Vista Cable does and
offer only a single, larger package of non-premium channels.
Even as the industry is further deregulated, with federal rate limits on expanded service lifted in
March 1999, basic cable rates will continue to be subject to local regulation. By approving last
year's rate request (as modified by the FCC to $1.57), Council would not be giving up any of
its authority to continue its review and approval/denial of future basic rate increase applications.
This would continue until "effective competition" is achieved (see "Current state of competition"
below).
Current state of competition
Chula Vista has historically been one of the few jurisdictions in the nation to have competition
in the cable market, between Cox and Chula Vista Cable. With the passage of the 1996
Telecommunications Act, several avenues were opened to additional competition within the cable
industry. The most anticipated of these stems from the convergence of telephone and cable
technology around fiber optics. Pacific Bell has yet to roll out a telephone line-based video
product, but they are test-marketing in the Los Angeles area a mini-dish system, with signals
originating from line-of-sight mountain-based antennas. Another company, Digital Broadcasting
OVS is working to bring to market a more flexible system taking advantage of a combination of
leased wires/satellites/etc. from other companies. Such an "open video system" would act as a
conduit for programming providers to reach customers via channels leased from the OVS
company (without the need to build new networks). Additional activity and market expansion
from these companies is anticipated in 1998 and 1999.
)9-%
, Page 9
12/09/97
Item
Meeting Date
The ability of local agencies to regulate basic rates will continue until there is "effective
competition." Chula Vista Cable already faces effective competition from Cox based on Cox's
share of the local market. Therefore, the City cannot regulated Chula Vista Cable's rates. Cox
would be ruled to face effective competition if Chula Vista Cable were to serve 15% or more of
the households in the city. 2 Effective competition is also deemed to exist if a telephone company
or open video system begins offering non-satellite service in the franchise area, regardless of their
number of subscribers. Thus, once competition arrives, the City will lose its basic cable rate
regulatory authority. And with the March 1999 federal deregulation of expanded rates, all cable
rates will then be set by the market.
Other rate issues
As Council may be aware, there is currently a lawsuit pending regarding Cox' practices in
requiring customers to subscribe to expanded basic service if they wish to receive pay-per-view
or premium channels. Such a practice is not allowed under FCC regulations, unless (as in some
areas of San Diego County) there are technical constraints. In the Chula Vista service area, these
technical constraints do not exist. Thus, if a Chula Vista subscriber wanted to receive basic
service and HBO, a "signal trap" could be set in their home when the HBO converter box was
installed to allow them to opt out of expanded service.
Another rate issue which has yet to be resolved is the status of competition within the industry
and whether Congress will decide to change the law to regulate rates more strictly until greater
competition evolves. The Consumers Union is one group which is pushing for rate regulation
to be reconsidered. However, given the two-year concerted effort Congress went through to pass
the 1996 act, it is unlikely that any significant effort will be made to roll back its direction to
leave rate setting to the open market. In the meantime, open video systems, phone-based and
satellite-based competitors continue to position themselves to test market or compete on a wide-
scale basis.
Staff will continue to track each of these issues closely and keep Council informed of any
significant developments.
Other Cities
As of November 15, 1997, Cox has begun charging customers in other cities at a rate of $13 for
basic and $30.95 for expanded service. Chula Vista, National City, Santee and Imperial Beach
are on a slightly delayed rate schedule due to the timing of the upgrade and rate review processes
and would be subject to increases in February 1998. The rate increases in effect in the City and
County of San Diego, La Mesa and Poway were also reviewed by Public Knowledge and found
to be appropriately justified.
2 Serving 15% of households means actually having them as subscribers, not merely having
cable facilities in place. Chula Vista Cable does not currently have enough subscribers to pose
"effective competition."
/9/7
Item , Page 10
Meeting Date 12/09/97
While Chula Vista subscribers to "Cox Standard" have been paying the same $28.95 as others in
the County, Chula Vista basic customers have been paying $9.74 for the past year. Others in
Cox's service area have been paying $10.50, while those in the northern areas of San Diego
County have been paying $12.50. This has been a benefit to Chula Vista customers while the
rate methodology has been in question. This benefit would disappear as Cox attempts equalize
their rates countywide3 There would remain, however, a difference in maximum permitted rates.
With the proposed changes, Chula Vista's maximum permitted rates would be $14.17 for basic
and $35.29 for expanded service. In several north county communities, these rates ranges as high
as $16.26 for basic and $36.32 for expanded service. In cities with other franchisees, some actual
rates also exceed Cox's planned charges, including $15.50 for basic service from Daniels (e.g.
Carlsbad) and $31.41 for basic+expanded from Southwestern (e.g. parts of San Diego, Poway).
FISCAL IMP ACT:
The actual rates currently being charged for basic and expanded service are $9.74 and $28.95.
The sum of the recommended changes in maximum permitted rates is $4.43 in basic rates and
$0.46 in expanded service rates. The actual rates changes Cox is projecting for 1998 are an
increase of $3.26 (+33.5%) for basic cable (to a basic rate of $13) and a decrease of $1.26
(-6.6%) for expanded service (for a new expanded rate of $17.95 and a total rate of $30.95).4
This would amount to a $2.00 (+6.9%) increase in the overall cost of "Cox Standard" service.
Based on Cox's plan to bring all rates in the county to a charge of $30.95, the actual total "Cox
Standard" rate for Chula Vista would not be dependent upon Council's action on the upgrade-
related basic rate request. Rather, the exact ratio between basic and expanded rates that leads to
the $30.95 charge would be impacted.
In terms of City revenues, franchise fees would be projected to increase by approximately
$25,000 via the recommended action. Staff has not given any consideration to the potential
impact of rate regulation on these fees in conducting the rate regulation function.
Attachments:
Resolution
Q 1. City Council Minutes, October 15 and 22, 1997
~ 2. Cox Communications, Initial and revised FCC Form 1235 (excerpts)
~ 3. Cox Communications, Basic Rate Appeal to FCC, November 21, 1996
. 4. Federal Communications Commission, Ruling and Errata re: Cox Expanded/CPS Rate Complaint,
December 1996, January 1997
fI;) 5. Cox Communications, FCC Forms 1205, 1240, July/October, 1997
~ 6. Public Knowledge, Review of FCC Forms 1205, 1240, October 10, 1997
o 7. Public Knowledge, Review of FCC Form 1235 (1996)
~ 8. Union-Tribune, "Cox to hike most customers' cable rates," October 17, 1997
cllcablelcoxl13.rt
3 The $2.00 disparity between north county and most other jurisdictions disappeared in
November when all were switched to a $13 basic rate.
4 In the process of reaching $30.95 as a total rate for "Cox Standard," the marginal cost for
the expanded service itself would actually drop by $1.26 from $19.21 to $17.95.
/'1-/r!l
RESOLUTION NO. / g (J 3 'f
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA (1) APPROVING VARIOUS PROPOSED
COST-BASED DECREASES FOR INSTALLATIONS AND
ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT; AND (2) APPROVING
PROPOSED COST-BASED INCREASES IN THE MAXIMUM
PERMITTED RATES FOR THE BASIC SERVICE TIER
($2.86); AND (3) APPROVING PROPOSED COST-BASED
INCREASES IN THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED RATES FOR
THE CABLE PROGRAMMING SERVICES TIER ($0.46);
AND (4) APPROVING PROPOSED UPGRADE-RELATED
INCREASES IN THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED RATES FOR
THE BASIC SERVICE TIER ($1.57)
WHEREAS, Items 1, 2,
Communications' annual cost-based
maximum permitted rates; and
and 3 above represent Cox
requests for increases in their
WHEREAS, such increases are allowed by the FCC as long as
they conform to a formula of inflationary and programming expenses;
and
WHEREAS, Chula vista's consul tant reviewed these
calculations and found them to be appropriately justified; and
WHEREAS, Item 4 above is based on an analogous FCC
decision rejecting Chula vista's 1996 complaint regarding upgrade-
related increases in expanded basic services; and
WHEREAS, although the appeal on upgrade-related increases
in basic services is still pending (since November of 1996), Cox
has requested that this be reconsidered since the expandedjCPS and
basic rates were computed on the same upgrade-based formula; and
WHEREAS, after a duly noticed public hearing on December
9, 1997 at 6:00 p.m., the City Council heard and considered
testimony regarding existing and proposed rates and charges for Cox
Communications' Basic Service Tier and associated equipment and
Cable Programming Services Tier, as submitted by Cox Communications
to the City via Federal Communications commission (FCC) Forms 1235,
1240 and 1205.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
city of Chula vista does hereby (1) approve various proposed cost-
based decreases for installations and associated equipment as
follows: the hourly service charge shall decrease from $31.03 to
$30.49; converter box rental shall decrease from $1.40 to $0.79 per
month; (2) approve proposed cost-based increases in the maximum
permitted rates for the basic service tier ($2.86); (3) approve
proposed cost-based increases in the maximum permitted rates for
the cable programming services tier ($0.46); and (4) approve
/9-/)
proposed upgrade-related increases in the maximum permitted rates
for the basic service tier ($1.57).
Presented by
Approved as to form by
C:\rs\rates.cox
Gerald Young, Principal
Management Assistant
/9-/2
ATTACHMENT 1
--0::-/9' Minutes
Ootober 15, 1996
Page 7
I
12, PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING EXISTING A),'D PROPOSED RATES AA'D CHARGES FOR COX
COMJlruNICATIONS' BASIC SERVICE TIER A.l\'D ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT AND CABLE
PROGRAMMING SERVICE TIER, AS SUBMlTIED BY COX COMJ\ruNICATIONS TO THE CITY VIA
FEDERAL COMJ\ruNICATION COMMISSION (FCC) FORMS l235, 1240 AND 1205 - In May 1996, Cox
Communications instituted a $3.79 increase in its Cable Programming Services tier. This charge is subject to FCC
regulation, thus any complaints must be filed with the FCC. At the same time, Cox proposed to raise its Maximum
Permitted Rates for the Basic Service Tier, which is subject to City regulation. Both of these changes were based
on costs to upgrade Cox's infrastructure. Further cost-based increases in Maximum Permitted Rates were requested
in July, along with decreases in the rates for associated equipment/installations. Staff recommends approval of the
resolution. (principal Management Assistant Young) Continued from the meeting of 10/1/96
RESOLUTION 18447 DISAPPROVING UPGRADE-RELATED INCREASES IN MAXIMUM PERMITTED
RATES FOR THE BASIC SERVICE TIER; DIRECTING STAFF TO FILE A COMPLATh'T WITH THE
FCC ON BEHALF OF LOCAL SUBSCRIBERS REGARDING UPGRADE-RELATED INCREASES IN THE
CABLE PROGRAMMING SERVICE TIER RATES; APPROVING PROPOSED COST-BASED RATE
DECREASES FOR ASSOCIATED EQUIPME!\'T; A!\'D APPROVING PROPOSED COST-BASED
INCREASES IN THE MAXlJIfUM PERMITTED RATES FOR THE BASIC SERVICE TIER
Gerald Young, Senior Management Assistant, said there was concern about some changes in Cox Communication's
rates: (I) upgraded related cbange, (2) a cost base or inflationary change, and (3) a decrease in the equipment and
installation rates for Cox. The equipment rates and inflation based changes in the rates bave been reviewed by a
consultant and found to be appropriate and staff recommends approvaL The remaining change, which is the upgrade
base change, is still a subject of some discussion and dispute between the City and Cox. Cox was provided with
a copy of the consultant's report concerning those rates and in their response, they concurred with some of the
ftndings in tbe report and revised their proposal accordingly. Most of the rates were maximum permitted rates and
they are Dot what is currently charged on customers' bills.
As things currently stand, regardless of the decrease of about 65 cents in what Cox is proposing, we still have
approximately $5.11 in dispute. There is a percentage of the cost of the infrastructure upgrade attributed to existing
channels, and in Cox's response, tbat percentage was reduced from 80 percent to 73 percent. This means that Cox's
current customers were cbarged, or are proposed to be charged, an additional amount based on how this upgrade
improved service. The consultant's report claims that most, or at least a large portion, of this upgrade should not
be charged to existing customers since there were no additional basic cable channels added to the sen'ice as a result
of the upgrade. Cox's position is that since there was some increase in the quality of the signal being received by
customers, it is appropriate for some percentage of the charge to be passed along to tbe customer.
The rea.l question we are faced with is what that percentage should be. It is a technical question and one that can
be resolved in one of two ways. The City can work with our consultant, at additional expense, to do a more
detailed rate study to determine what that exact rate should be, or the matter can be turned over to the FCC as a
formal complaint. In terms of reviewing tbe rates, cities are Dot required to determine wbat tbe exact rate sbould
be. If we determine that the rates, as proposed by the cable company, are not appropriate, the City can file a
complaint with the FCC. It is incumbent on the FCC to determine what dollar figures we should be talking about
and that is what staff recommends.
Staff also recommends that a caveat be added to the resolution to allow staff one additional week to meet with Cox
to discuss other potential options. Cox also requested a one-week continuance. If the City chose to submit a
complaint to the FCC, we are facing a deadline of 10/28/96, and there would be sufficient time at the 10/22/96
meeting to take whatever actions by Council. He added that since we are looking at a situation where additional
rate studies would require additional time and expense of City staff and a consultant, it is somewhat unlikely we
would reach a compromise.
/ -I
1\'ilnutes
October 15, 1996
Page 8
Staff recomroends that if Council chose to take action tonight, to add language "be it further resolved that CnunclI
hereby authorizes staff to continue to discuss the subject rate request with Cox communications, with any
complaints to the FCC tahled until the conclusion of those discussions, hut in no case tahled heyond 10/23/96. If
alternative terms can be strUctured to the satisfaction of both parties, they shaU he brought back to Council on
10/22/96 for final consideration..
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open.
. Mary Teets, 5159 Federal Boulevard, San Diego, CA, representing Cox Communications, stated they have been
working with staff to corne up with some type of compromise, sO they can avoid the City filing a complaint with
the FCC. In Cox's opinion, it is not something in the best interest of the City, for Cox, or their customers. Cox
submitted a revised Form 1235 and requested the opportunity to continue working with staff for the next week, and
to have this item brought back to Council on 10/22/96.
Councilmember Moot asked if the FCC had an alternative dispute resolution forum where the City and Cox could
go to a mediator, without having to go through the time and expense of filing a formal complaint.
Ms. Teets said Cox had formal discussions with the FCC and the City's consultant to try to work on this issue, and
the consultant is of the opinion that this is a gray area in terms of FCC guidelines. Cox would like to work with
staff to come up with some type of compromise that would be acceptable to the City and Cox to avoid an FCC
complaint. At this point, Cox is unaware of an alternative process.
counci1member Moot said private industry has corne to the conclusion that these types of disputes are particularly
amenable to mediation, and he asked Mr. Young to check if that was an available alternative.
.-
Mr. Young said he would look into that, and added that one of staffs concerns in this process was that there was
a revised filing that showed a 73 percent application of the upgraded costs to existing channels. If staff and Cox
were able to arrive at some compromise, it was unclear whether it was an entirely arbitrary figure or an
inappropriately justified figure. That is where we would incur some additional expense if we were to get into
arbitration or require further work with the consultant. In terms of filing a complaint with the FCC, there would
he nO additional expense incurred by the City. If Cox continued charging the rates they were currently charging,
that would be part of the subject of the complaint. Cox would not be precluded from that during the term of the
complaint and if they chose to overrule the City turning down the other rate increases, they could charge those rates,
until the FCC ruled otherwise.
Councilmember Alevy asked for justification on the 1235 filing, because the May rate increased from $15.90 to
$19.69, which was about 24 percent. Be said we should do all we can to keep this in-house, and to corne up with
an agreement with the City and Cox before we ask the Federal government to make the decision for us.
MSUC (HortonIAlevy) to continue the item to the meeting of 10/22/96.
ORAL C01l1MUN1CA TlONS
None.
BOARD Al'.'D COM1IUSSlON RECOMMEl'.'DA TlONS
None submitted.
l-~
Minutes
OOlokr 22, 1996
Page 3
1O.A. RESOLUTION 18464 MODIFYING THE AGREEMEl\'T \\1TH MUKICIPAL RESOURCE
CONSULTANTS (MRC) TO EXPAND THE SCOPE OF SERVICES PROVIDED BY )\ffiC TO INCLUDE
UTILITY USERS TAX (UUT) AUDIT SERVICES - The Fiscal Year 1996/97 budget included $50,000 in
revenue to be derived from an OUT Audit. Given MRC's satisfactory performance conducting the City's sales tax
audit and excellent references from jurisdictions where MRC has audited OUT, it is recommended modifying the
City's agreement with MRC to add our audit services to be compensated on a contingency basis. To access the
records of Utility providers, "Friendly Subpoenas" must be issued as companies are prolllbited from voluntarily
disclosing confidential customer information. Staff recommends approval of the resolutions. (Director of Finance).
B. RESOLUfION 18465 INSTITUfING AN AUDIT PROCEEDING OF THE CITY'S GAS, ELECTRIC
AND TELEPHONE UTILITY USERS TAX, DESIGNATING MUNICIPAL RESOURCE CONSULTAl\'TS
AS AUTHORIZED REPRESEl\lATIVES OF THE CITY FOR COJ\'DUCTING THE AUDIT AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO ISSUE SUBPOENAS FOR THIS PURPOSE.
11. REPORT REGARDING THE DEVELOPMEr.'T IMPACT FEE FUNDS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
ENDED JUNE 30, 1996 _ State government requires local agencies assessing Development Impact Funds to make
available financial data to the public each fiscal year. It also requires the local agency review this information at
a public meeting. Staff recommends Council accept the report and approve of the resolution. (Director of Finance)
RESOLUTION 18466 MAKING FINDINGS THAT THE UNEXPENDED FUNDS IN THE VARIOUS DIF
FUNDS ARE STILL NEEDED TO PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES FOR WHICH THE FEES
'WERE COLLECTED
... ... .. END OF CONSENT CALENDAR .. .. ..
PUBLIC HEARINGS Al\'D RELATED RESOLUfIONS AND ORDINANCES
12. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING EXISTING AND PROPOSED RATES AND CHARGES FOR COX
COMMUNICATIONS' BASIC SERVICE TIER AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMEJ\'T Al\'D CABLE
PROGRAMMING SERVICE TIER, AS SUBMITTED BY COX COMMUNICATIONS TO THE CITY VIA
FEDERAL COMMUNICATION COMM1SSION (FCC) FORMS U35, U40 AND 1205 - Cox Communications
and staff have discussed potential courses of action regarding the City's regulation of cable rates. Those discussions
have also included further contacts with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the City's consultant,
Public Knowledge. The staff recommended position would result in a Maximum Permitted Rate of $26.92, but
would allow Cox to charge as much as $30.95 per month, unless and until such a charge is invalidated by the FCC.
Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (principal Management Assistant Young) Continued from the
meeting of 10/15/96.
RESOLUfION 18447 DISAPPROVING UPGRADE-RELATED INCREASES IN MAXIMUM PERMTITED
RATES FOR THE BASIC SERVICE TIER; DIRECTING STAFF TO FILE A COMPLATh'T WITH THE
FCC ON BEHALF OF LOCAL SUBSCRIBERS REGARDING UPGRADE-RELATED INCREASES IN THE
CABLE PROGRAMMING SERVICE TIER RATES; APPROVING PROPOSED COST-BASED RATE
DECREASES FOR ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT; AND APPROVING PROPOSED COST-BASED
INCREASES IN THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED RATES FOR THE BASIC SERVICE TIER
Gerald Young, Senior Management Assistant, stated this item was continued from 10/15/96 so Cox Communications
and staff could discus the issue still in dispute. There are three rate issues proposed for Council. On two of the
issues, staff concurs with Cox and has recommended approval. On the third issue, which is related to a system
upgrade that Cox completed, there was a dispute as to what portion of that upgrade should be passed on to existing
customers. (Public Knowledge, the consultant, was not present.)
In our discussions with Cox over the past week, we discussed the bottom-line priorities that Cox has in this rate
filing. The first priority is that they have reached a market rate of $28.95 per month. This is a rate they announced
in other jurisdictions and are instituting effective 11/15/96, and Cox is interested instituting that rate in Chula Vista
following the resolution of these issues. The second priority was to avoid the need to file a basic rate appeal. If
they were unable to reach the rates they wanted and found the need to appeal the City's decision on basic cable
rates, they would file an appeal with the FCC. There are two processes that can go before the FCC: one is a basic
1-3
Minute~;
Ootober 22, 1996
Page 4
rate appeal, and the other is a complaint filed by the City on the expanded basic or cable programming services.
In the alternatives presented hy staff, the first alternative accomplishes two of Cox's priorities: it allows them to
reach a rate of $28.95 per month, without having to resort to a hasic rate appeal. The current maximum permitted
rate is $26.92. With what staff recommends, Cox would be able to reach a rate of $30.95, subject to the possibility
that the FCC migbt rule that all or a portion of that rate was not justified. Cox's position has been the rate is
justified, and they would be allowed to cbarge up to that rate, unless and until the FCC ruled otberwise. If the FCC
ruled that Cox charged a rate higher than they should, customers would be subject to refimds. The other two
alternatives shown in the report are proposals 2 and 3, that the City approve the upgrade-based increase in the basic
cable, but either file a complaint with the FCC or not file a complaint. These are somewhat more of the preferred
options for Cox. The third option allows them to reach the $28.95 rate or higber, without having to file a basic
rate appeal. Wbat remains in question is whether the City would file a complaint with the FCC over the expanded
basic rates, which is what Cox asks for. The current basic rate is $7.30 per month; the requested rate is $10.50
per month, which amounts to a 44 percent increase. It is staff's recommendation, on that basis and on the
inconclusive nature of some of the data, that Council not approve the increase.
In terms of the upgrade, Cox is requesting a portion of that upgrade be attributed to existing channels. Their initial
request was that 80 percent of that upgrade be attributed to existing channels; that was revised to 73 percent a few
weeks ago; and in further discussions, to approximately 43 percent. In looking at the available data, it is somewhat
inconclusive. Staff and the consultant came to the conclusion that perhaps 33 percent, or something Jess than that,
might properly be attributed to existing channels and customers, and therefore this lower 43 percent that Cox
proposed might not be an appropriate rate. Since the data is inconclusive, staff recommends that we refer this to
the FCC, which is the body that typically bears cable programming service complaints to determine wbat the exact
percentage should be. When cities review rate cases like this, they are not required to come up with those exact
percentages, as they are only asked to determine whether the rates, as they are proposed, are appropriate or
inappropriate.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open.
. Mary Teets, 5159 Federal Boulevard, San Diego, CA, with Cox Communications, said the first two issues are
Cox's filing of FCC Forms 1240 and 1205. Staff and its consultant recommend approval of those forms and came
to the conclusion that Cox is in compliance with FCC rules and guidelines in filing those forms. The third issue
is the FCC Form 1235, whicb is a vehicle devised by the FCC to allow cable operators to recoup some of the costs
of upgrading networks. In the South Bay, Cox invested $27 million since 1995 in the upgrade. Cox and staff have
been negotiating as to what is the appropriate allocation rate. When Cox originally filed their Form 1235 with the
City, the allocation rate was 80 percent; wben Cox received the draft complaint from the City, the rate was reduced
to 73 percent; and since having discussions with staff from the last Council meeting, Cox came down to 43 percent.
The 43 percent would not allow Cox to recoup over $11 miIlion in costs they put into the upgrade.
Councilmember Alevy asked if Council moved forward as staff recommended, would Cox apply to the FCC for
a higher rate, or would we send a letter of concern to the FCC and they would decide the rate.
Ms. Teets replied that on the Forms 1240 and 1205, the FCC established Cox's maximum permitted rate.
Regarding Form 1235, most likely what would bappen is the FCC would review it and come to a decision, and it
would return to Council for certification. It could be years for a decision to be made, but Cox would do everything
in their power to expedite the process with the FCC to get a ruling.
Councilmember Alevy asked if there would be any back charging, or would Cox bave to live with the cbarges the
City agreed to during that interim period.
Ms. Teets responded if the FCC said 80 percent was the proper aIlocation rate, Cox would legally bave the ability
to go back and recoup that. Whether it makes sense for Cox in terms of a practical and market position, they would
have to look at it at that point in time.
Mr. Young stated while the complaint was pending with the FCC, Cox would bave the ability to charge the full
amount they requested of the City, and still do so until tbe FCC said otherwise. If Cox cbose to charge an amount
less than the full amount, there is a possibility the FCC could approve more than that, but Cox could charge as
much as they initially requested until they were told otherwise, and at that point be potentially liable for refunds.
} -tf
Minutes
October 22, 1996
Page 5
Councilmember Moot asked if Cox could go from the current rate to $30.95 per month starting tomOrrow.
Mr. Young answered yes. Under the staff recommendation, Cox would be able to charge up to their maximum
permitted rates with 30 days' notice. If all portions of the staff recommendation were approved, Cox would be able
to cbarge the additional rates under the Form 1240, the cost base filing, and they would be denied the increase that
corresponded to the basic cable portion of the upgrade. All portions of the upgrade related to tbe expanded basic
services is what Cox would be allowed to charge until the FCC said otberwise.
Councilmember Moot asked if their target rate was $28, why were we nOW in the position of possibly accepting a
rate bike as higb as $30.
Mr. Young explained the reason the option was recommended is because it gave us some certainty that the rate is
justified. To this point, we operated with somewbat incomplete information as to what the appropriate criteria was
to determine bow mucb of the upgrade sbould be allocated to existing customers and existing cbannels. Cox came
up with a formula working backwards from the $28.95 rate to arrive at a 43 percent rate, and while that migbt seem
on the surface a little more reasonable than the initial proposal of 80 percent, it is still not a rate that we bave
enougb information to know wbether it is appropriate or not. For that reason, staff recommends that we proceed
with a complaint to the FCC sO they can determine the exact percentage.
Councilmember Moot said the wbole purpose of the Telecommunications Act was to get tbe federal government out
of the regulatory business and try to get these matters resolved at a local leve\. The two-year costs of Cox's appeal
would be paid, the FCC would incur costs, and those costs would be passed rigbt back to the taxpayers. He
questioned going through two years' of appeals if the amount of money was not significant, and we were close to
bandling this matter without having to bump it to a higher leve\.
Councilmember Rindone said eacb $1.00 difference in the rate is bundreds of thousands of dollars in consumer
payment fees, and so what might initially appear to be 20, 40 or 65 cents does not appear to be significant, but it
is, particularly in Cox's viewpoint of that number times the number of subscribers eacb montb. You would look
at somewbere in excess of $400,000 for each $1 cbange in the rate for subscribers.
Councilmember Moot said it was definitely major dollars to Cox. He was looking at it from tbe individual tax
payer's perspective, who would indirectly pay the cost of this appeal. We need to develop an ability to resolve these
issues at the local level, because if we want to reduce the size of government and keep taxes down, we are going
to bave to buy into the philosopby of the Telecommunications Act.
Councilmember Rindone asked wbat was tbe responsibility of Council, as a local entity, to look at the base rate and
scenario. The fact that it may be two years' backlog is an issue tbat is unfortunate for tbe applicant, because they
would not know bow the FCC would rule, and the potential of having to pay back not only the rates that may be
overcharged but also the interest.
Ms. Teets said sbe was not aware of the interest rates. Sbe agreed with Council tbat Cox wanted to avoid a
complaint being filed. Initially, Cox's rate was 80 percent; wben they received the City's draft complaint, the rate
was reduced to 73 percent. In the move from 80 percent to 73 percent, there was a 65 cent drop in the rates per
month. In bopes of avoiding a complaint and not baving to bounce this up to the federal level, Cox furtber reduced
it to 43 percent. In terms of where staff and the consultant are, they started at 33 percent and ended at 33 percent.
This is one of the reasons that a compromise was not made. If there was a way to avoid the complaint, Cox would
like t? do that, but felt they negotiated in good faitb and moved the allocation down.
Mr. Young concurred that Cox worked in good faith with staff on this, and staff tried to present some alternatives
that migbt accomplisb Cox's priorities in other ways. The staffs viewpoint was not really from a negotiatioI
perspective, but from a justifiable cost perspective. Since we are operating under somewbat incomplete information
it was the basis of the recommendation for referral to the FCC.
Councilmember Alevy asked if this particular filing involved all of the paid cable subscribers or just a select fe'
that get extended cable, premium channels, etc.
Ms. Teets answered the Form 1235 filing involved upgrading the network in the Cities of Chula Vista, Imperi
Beach, National City, and Santee, and sbe was not aware of any other cities tbat took action.
~
1-5
Minutes
Ootober 22, 1996
Page 6
Councilmember Alevy indicated he wanted to see what other cities were doing before making a decision. He was
concerned that we might do something other cities weren't doing, and charge more or less than others in the
community. He did not want to see our citizens pay more than what others paid.
Mr. Young stated the upgrade that took place for the four cities resulted in an initial increase on 511196. Cities have
180 days after the rate increase to file a protest with the FCC, after first giving Cox 30 days' notice. Chula Vista
was the only city to file notice with Cox; however, we have been working with the other cities. We were
participating jointly in the study by Public Knowledge, and those cities and Chula Vista shared the information that
came from the study. At this point, the other cities have not decided to go forward with any rate complaints;
however, they could still file rate complaints in the future as Cox made further increases in their cable programming
service rates.
Councilmember Rindone said he read that the other three cities missed the 180-day deadline, so it locked in the new
market rate for those cities. We have a responsibility to protect the interest rates of our constituents and rate
payers, and if that is justified, then that is part of the process until the FCC gets it corrected.
Councilmember Moot stated the issue was the ability of Cox to recoup a capital outlay they made. Most businesses
who make capital outlays recoup their cost by raising the cost of the product or cutting back services. There is a
deviation from the norm here and the difficulty is finding an appropriate percentage. He asked if there was a policy
staff looked at in trying to determine the appropriate level.
Mr. Young answered yes, one way of looking at it would be the upgrade from 450 megahertz to 750 megahertz.
Cox made a 300 megahertz improvement in their system and have so far activated one-third of that. One way of
looking at it is if they activated one-third of the system, only one-third of the cost should be passed along at this
time. When the rest of the system is activated and as new channels and services are added, those services should
then bear the cost of the upgrade.
Councilmember Padilla stated with regard to the primary upgrade-related increase, there has been some mutual
understanding about some of the things both parties should consider in arriving at a percentage. He was not going
to try to quantify what the cost to the rate payers sbould be with sending this to the FCC. He asked how long
would it last, and what would it cost, because the rate payers may pay associated costs with an FCC involvement
anyway. There is also the issue if it turns out the rate is not justified and the rate payers bave been paying it in the
interim, they would get refunded.
Mr. Young said in teons of saying there was no movement, Cox bas made some movement in their position, and
the movement staff tried to make is in terms of presenting alternatives that do not commit, from a policy
perspective, as to whether one percentage seems appropriate or not. There still exists the uncertainty whether 43
percent is justified, or whether 43 percent is close enough to what might be justified.
Councilmember Padilla asked what did Council need to know in terms of tools and resources to agree with Cox to
come to a determination about whether or not that is an appropriate rate. If there is room for movement, we need
to make it happen before going to the FCC. If there isn't room for movement, we need to know the parameters
are agreed on and disagreed on, and the rates are understood and disagreed to before going to the FCC.
Ms. Teets commented that Cox moved from 80 percent to 73 percent, and then to 43 percent. In discussions with
the FCC, they gave an unofficial response that Cox met the criteria for the Form 1235 filing. The criteria would
be channel additions and improvement to the signal quality, which they have met by upgrading the signal from a
45DB to a 48DB. Prior to the upgrade, Cox averaged close to 15,000 hours of customer outages, and after the
upgrades, Cox averaged 700 hours; it has been a marked improvement in reliability, and those are some of the
criteria used to come up with the allocation. In Cox's discussion with the FCC, they wouldn't comment in terms
of what the exact number was because it would be something they would look at if there was an official complaint.
The FCC also said it was their preference for a local settlement to be reached. If a settlement could be reached
that did not go below 43 percent, Cox was open to that.
Mr. Young stated there are actually a number of different criteria that Cox and staff looked at in terms of the
changes in the system. As Ms. Teets referred, channel line-ups and additional channels are some of tbose criteria;
others include how the quality of signal or reliability of the service changed, and the percentages those criteria have
dramatically changed. What staff is looking at, and what our consultant advised we look at, is to ask the FCC bow
these criteria should be factored in, how that rate is arrived at, and what rate is passed along to the customers. We
have a consultant hired by a group of cities to review the appropriateness or inappropriateness of the forms, as filed
/ -{p
Minutes
October 22, 1996
Page 7
by Cox Communications. In two of those cases, we have already agreed they were properly filed. In this case,
the consultant determined there were potential errors in the way Cox filed their forms. The consultant would be
qualified to do a more in-depth study of wbat the exact rates sbould be cbarged in a situation like this, In talking
with FCC representatives, it is something they bave not dealt witb yet. It may be similar to previous rate studies,
but it is something that will require more in-<lepth study.
MSUC (RindonelHorton) to approve staff recommendations listed as alternative #1.
13. PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERATION OF EST ABLISHING UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT
l\'UMBER 129 ALONG OTAY LAKES ROAD FROM RIDGEBACK ROAD TO APACHE DRIVE - Public
bearing is to determine wbetber the public bealth, safety, or general welfare requires the formation of an
underground utility district along Otay Lakes Road from Ridgeback Road to Apacbe Drive. Staff recommends
approval of resolution. (Director of Public Works).
RESOLUTION 18467 ESTABLISHING UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NtThffiER 129 ALONG
OTAY LAKES ROAD FROM RIDGEBACK ROAD TO APACHE DRIVE AND AUTHORIZING THE
EXPENDITURE OF UTILITY ALLOCATION FUNDS TO SUBSIDIZE PRIVATE SERVICE LATERAL
CONVERSION
This being the time and place as advertised, the meeting was declared open.
Mayor Horton commented there was reference to a section of Otay Lakes Road that is classified in the General Plan
Circulation Element as a six-lane prime arterial and is designated as a scenic higbway. From a safety perspective,
she requested staff look at the conversion district, because it was dangerous coming down that road with the level
of gravitation.
RESOLUTION 18467 OFFERED BY MAYOR HORTON, reading of the text was waived, title read, passed
and approved unanimously.
14.A. RESOLUTION 18416 APPROVING A RESOURCE CONVEYANCE AGREEMENT FOR THE
OTAY RANCH SPA ONE, TRACT 96-04 - (This is a related item. but does not reouire a puhlic heann2)
B. RESOLUTION 18417 APPROVING AN ThTl)EMNIFICATION AGREEMENT WITH VILLAGE
DEVELOPMENT FOR TRACT 96-04 - (This is a related item. but does not reouire a puhlic heann~)
C. PUBLIC HEARING PCS 96-04: CONSIDERATION OF A REVISED TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
FOR THE OTA Y RANCH SPA ONE, TRACT 96-04 GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF TELEGRAPH
CANYON ROAD BETWEEN PASEO RANCHERO Al'\TI) THE FUTURE SR-125 ALIGNMENT Al'\TI)
EXCLUDING 288 ACRES IN ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER (APN) 642-060-11 AND A PORTION OF APN
642-080-11- Adopt a Second Addendum to FElR 95-01 and recertify FElR 95-01 and the First Addendum for the
Otay Rancb SPA One and Tentative Subdivision Map for Village One and Pbase I-A of Village Five of the Otay
Rancb SPA One, Cbula Vista Tract 96-04, in accordance witb the findings and subject to the condition contained
in the in the draft resolution. Staff recommends approval of the resolutions. (Otay Rancb Manager) Continued
from the meeting of 9/17/96.
D. RESOLUTION 18398 ADOPTING THE SECOND ADDENDUM TO AND CERTIFYING FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FElR 95-01 (SCH #95021012) AND FIRST ADDENDUM
READOPTING THE STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Al'\TI) THE J\fiTIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE FElR Al'\TI) APPROVING A REVISED
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR PORTIONS OFTHEOTAYRANCHO SPA ONE, CHULA VISTA
TRACT 96-04, AND MAKING THE NECESSARY FINDINGS AND DENYING APPROVING OF
ALTERNATIVE TENTATIVE MAP PROPOSALS
MSUC to continue to 11/12/96.
15. PUBLIC HEARING ADOPTING OTAY RANCH PRE-Al'\'J\'EXATlON DEVELOPMEl'.'T
AGREEMEl\'T WITH VILLAGE DEVELOPMEl\'T - An amendment to the development agreement to further
guarantee infrastructure improvements where the developer wants to create parcels for sale prior to finalizing the
final subdivision map. The amendment also addresses future problems witb regard to any debt payment tbat migbt
be levied to make public improvements or sbould development be only partially completed on any particular project
/ _ r}
Fcd:ra! Communi::a~io;".s Com:o,i~>io:",
\\'a.>hi;-;g:o:'l. D.C 20554
ATTACHMENT 2
Abbreviated Cost of Service Filling
For Cable Network Upgrades
Part II. Upgrade Revenue Requirement Computation
lal
Ibl
lei
BST
CPSTs
BST
CPSTs
9.30%
597.601
248.336
1-
2.
Net Upgrade Rate Base (Worksheet A, Line 4el
Re:urr. on Investment
a. Rete of Return Percentage
b. Computed Rewrn on Upgrade Ra:e Base (Line 1 x Line 2al ."
A.~_~,'~' .. ~ :.
'""..."l:. - -~. .
""';i'-'";:
.~.~.~. .:"~.
~~ -- -
11.25%
3.
Allowance for Income Taxes
8 federal Income Tax Rate
b. S':.a':.e Income Tax ?ate
c. Computed Relurn on Upgrade Rale Base (Line 2b) j,::'-"
~~':'-':~~;~~ :~~.%r~.
d. Interest expense rel"ned to upg,ade (Worksheet A, Line Sel
e. Dis-.ritlU'tions (Ncm.C Corp. Filers Only)
i. COn1ritJulions (Non.C Corp. filers Only]
'._~' .,,~-.c":l-::L .....___
-.~,,' ..........-.. ~...~-.
..
g. Return Amount swbject 10 income lax
h. Income Tax Alio\".'a:;ce
ProJe:te: Net Impact of Upg~a:le C7"', Oper2,:in;
Expe::ses (V,Iorkshee'i: A. Line oel
Ne'i: Revenue and lil:c:-:;e Adjus:meil:s
ReI2-:.e: to Upgrade [V\/ork.sheet A, ~ine 12el
"To:al Upgrade Reve:"lue ReQui,em€:"\'i: (~ine 2 - 3'" t.... 5)
3~9.26-l
795.546
_......." c' __..___! ....~_......
..r~';,;, -. ~ .r~,,; :::-~::~ ...~
:.;,:": ~ ... - .
,,- --, I
__ I.~ I
586.:
. ~ ...-r.._
4;9.9'3 I
0\
1.3 1~.9'; I
1.0->7.'
...\ " " - .
. ...-
. " .
'. ,. -- ,.
. .'.' -
_.. _........._ ,u_.
-... -.-.-----
c.,.,
-p.?""~...~..
-."!...-::.-, ::.....
--- - - .--.
.--
..:r.:..:.~ ;~r!.-~
~'--'.~.-~":':.
e.
~:-;...i"~:.::'--::
::';'.::, . ._~-.-'.. .
=-,~._._" ."
.'
::>ar-: ::1. Ali~:2:lon of Upgr2:J€ i=:.eve!'lue Re::.J:remenl ~: E2sic and Cable Programming Service Tie~s
i _ Up;r2:::le Revenue Re:::'.;ireme:lts . (:;an 11. Line 5)
2_ Nu....:,er of Subscribers
3_ .L.:-.:"1:.Jal Revenue ReoulTemem Per S:.;b (Line 1 I Line 2\
4. t.~01"'..:hly Network Upgrade Add-on [Line 3 I i 2)
lal I Ibl lei
BST I CPST" , I CPS T " 2 Tota!
1.l1~.9~; I 2.995.152 I 4.31 Q.CIJ~
63.229 1 61."0 I
20796; I ~S.3IJ3 I I 691t--:-:;'
1.7330 I ' 0309 I I 5.,&-l0
5. Sele:ted method of subscriber recovery: (Check One)
Provide des::ri?1i::m for allocation of CPSI Revenue Requirement 10 CPS Tiers:
CERTIFICATION STATEMENl
WillFUL FALS: S7A,EM:N,S MAKE DN THIS FDRM ARE PUNISHASLE SY FINE AND/DR IMPRISDNMENT
(U.S. CDDE "TITLE 18. SECTIDN 1001). A"DIDR FDRFEITURE IUS CODE. TITLE 47. SECTIDN 5031.
I ::eni1y that ,he statements made in this form are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and are make in good falth.
Name and 'TItle of Person Compleiing this Form: Sign tute:' "\
I/i:
Telephone Number \'
(619p66.5~ Il.<
.d,
\
Willi1\m Fituimmons. Director of Finance & Administration
Date:
3115'96
-;7-
d-I
~
;;f...
l.~
FCC FCl~ 1':::~
rllO'= ~.~~" ~O.. ~__ - .,
. ~__.~~J'
Abbreviated Cost of Service Filling
/ For Cable Network Upgrades
part II. Upgrade Revenue Requirement Computation
r)
,. Not Upgrado Rilla a..o (Wo,kshoot A, Uno ~e)
2. Rerurn on InvGGtment
(a)
(b)
J.
'. Raw of Return Percentage
b. Ccmputod RllIum on Upgrade Rato Se.o IUne , x Une 2.al
Allow:mee for Income Taxes
a. Federal Jncome Tax Rate
b. Stot. Income Tex R.,o
e. CompUled Roturn on Upgrade Rato BaGe (Line 2b)
d. Interest expo""o rol.rod to upgr.de (Wor..heet A, Line ge)
e. DlstribUlions INon-C Corp. File.. Only)
f. Conmbutlon. 1N,?Rf"~orp. File.. ?~~:!-~
g. Return Amount :~~bject to income tax - ~
h. Income Tax Allowance
Projeotod Net Imp.ct of Upgr.de on Operllling
Expenses CWorkcheo'l: A, Une Be)
NBt RevenuI and lneorns AdjlJltmsnu
Rololed to Upgrade IWorkshoot A, Line 1 2~J
Total UPllrade Revenuo Requi",mMt (Line 2"'3+4+51
423.084
g~l>>
'C
4.
5.
6.
Part III. Alloeetion of Upgrede Rovenue Requirement to Besic and Ceble Progremmlng Ber"iee Tiara
;:11::'
. . ' , .:' -tll' ,
1. Upgrade R~nue Roquirements . (Part II. Line 6)
2. Number of Sub.crlbers
3. Annuel Rovonue Requirement Por Bub (Une , I Une 21
~. Monthly Network Upgrade Add-on lUno 3 J '21
."i, . (a) lbl (eJ
-, BST cm. , CPST . 2 Tote'
1.206,808 2,619,241 3.826,049
I : 63.229 61,920
"il , 19.0863 42,3004 61.3867
1.590S 3.S2S0 5.1156
. Provide descriplion for allocBtion of CP5T RevBnue Requirament to cPt; :Tieno:
5. Selectod method of eub..riber recovery: (Check Onel.
CERTIFICATION STATEMENT
<\'
,.,,: ;
WILLFUL FALSE STATEMENTS MAKE ON THIB FORM ARE PUNISHABLE BY FINE AND/OR IMPRISONMENT
(U.S. CODE TITLE ,e, SECTION 'OOlJ. ANDIOR FORFEITURE (US CODE, TITLE 47. SECTION 503).
I ""rtify that tho stet..mems made in thla form aro lrue and correct Ie the ~ of my knowledge and
Name and TItle of Person Completing thi, Ferm' ,Sign.turo
, .
Wl1llam Fltzalmm..... Di_r efYi..... 01: Admi.lstn6o. ", '
Dau:
3115/96
)
./
Pego~ig
//
J-:2
PCC Porm 123S
Pcbrumy 1996
ii-22-96 A09:46 IN
Before the
Federal CommunicatioI15 Conunission
Washington, D.C. 20554
ATTACHMENT 3
In the Matter of: )
)
Cox Communications San Diego, Inc. )
)
Appeal from a Local Rate Order of the )
City of Chula Vista, California )
Regarding Rates for Basic Service )
and Equipment )
Chula Vista, CA (CA0329)
APPEAL OF COX COMMUNICATIONS SAN DIEGO. INC.
COX COMMUNICATIONS SAN DIEGO, INC.
By: Peter H. Feinberg, Esq.
DOW, LOHNES & ALBERTSON
A Professional Limited Liability Company
1200 New Hampshire Ave., N.W.
Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20036
Peter C. Godwin, Esq.
444 N. Michigan A venue
Suite 3600
Chicago, IL 60611
Its Attorneys
November 21, 1996
3-1
TABLE OF CONTE1\'TS
SUMMARY ...............................................
1.
Introduction and Background .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1
II.
Standard of Review . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5
m. The City Erred in Disallowing All Form 1235 Upgrade Costs . . . . . . . . . . . 7
A.
Cox's Upgrade Is "Significant." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7
B.
Cox's Upgrade Benefits Customers Through Service Improvements
8
C.
Cox's Upgrade Cost Allocation Method is Reasonable ........
13
IV. Conclusion ..................................
17
7. - ')
J c7'
SUMMARY
The City of Chula Vista (the "City") misapplied the Federal Communications
Commission's (the "Commission's") regulations regarding the recovery of the costs of
significant cable system upgrades by disallowing Cox Communications San Diego, Inc. 's
("Cox's") proposed rate adjustments made pursuant to FCC Form 1235. Despite the
substantial and tangible benefits that the upgrade provided to basic cable subscribers, the City
refused to allocate any of the costs of its fiber rebuild to its regulated services. By focusing
on the fact that Cox's system upgrade did not result in additional channels on the basic
service tier ("BST") , the City altogether ignored the significant benefits the upgrade provided
to subscribers to regulated services and rejected Cox's allocation of a portion of the upgrade
costs to the basic cable service tier. Cox demonstrated that the upgrade had improved signal
quality and system reliability for all services, including basic cable service, and the City's
refusal to allow Cox to recover any of the costs of the system upgrade in its basic cable rates
requires that the Commission reverse and remand the City's Order.
The City also erred in rejecting Cox's allocation methodology to apportion upgrade
costs because Cox had added some channels under the "caps" method. Under the
Commission's regulations, operators may account for upgrade costs under the Form 1235 in
addition to any adjustments made pursuant to the benchmarkJprice cap rules.
3-3
-1-
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
Appeal from a Local Rate Order of the
City of Chula Vista, California
Regarding Rates for Basic Service
and Equipment
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Chula Vista, CA (CA0329)
In the Matter of:
Cox Communications San Diego, Inc.
APPEAL OF COX COMMUNlCA nONS SAN DIEGO
Cox Communications San Diego, Inc. ("Cox"), by its attorneys and pursuant to
Section 76.944 of the Federal Communications Commission's (the "Commission's") rules,
47 C.F.R. ~ 76.944, hereby files this Appeal of a rate order (the "Order") of the City of
Chula Vista, California (the "City") which disallowed Cox's proposed rate adjustments
substantiated by FCC Form 1235 in connection with a system upgrade, despite the substantial
and tangible benefits that the upgrade provides to basic cable subscribersY
1. Introduction and Background.
This appeal arises out of the City's determination that the rate increase proposed by
Cox was not justified by the Company's Form 1235.' rate filing. Cox recently substantially
11 The Order, Resolution No. 18447, is anached herewith as Exhibit 1.
'lJ Abbreviated Cost of Service Filing for Cable Network Upgrades.
3-L\
- 2 -
upgraded its cable plant serving the community of Chula Vista, California, as well as other
neighboring cable communities se~ed by the system, including Imperial Beach, National
City, and Santee (the "Chula Vista Upgrade"). The Chula Vista Upgrade was pan of an
ongoing upgrade of Cox's system serving the City of San Diego and surrounding
communities.
Cox expended approximately $27 million in 1994 and 1995 for the Chula Vista
Upgrade, which consists of 740 miles of cable plant serving 63,782 subscribers including
. 34,821 in the City of Chula Vista itself. Pursuant to the Chula Vista Upgrade, system
capacity was increased, on a staggered basis, from 300 MHz to 450 MHz to 750 MHz. The
entire system is planned to be upgraded to 750 MHz. All subscribers in the San Diego area
currently receive virtually the same channel lineup. However, some customers, such as
those in Chula Vista, still pay lower rates for the same services because, when rate
regulation was implemented, the upgrades were in different stages.~1 In Chula Vista, for
example, the system upgrade had only progressed to the 450 MHz level of service and Cox
accordingly filed rate forms reflecting only 450 MHz service.
'if Because various ponions of the system had different channel capacities, certain
subscribers paid lower rates because they received fewer services than the other ponions of
the system that had been rebuilt. The Commission has previously recognized such dual rate
strUctures. See Horry Telephone Cooperative, Inc., 10 FCC Rcd 2110 (1995) (permitting
dual rate strUcture in connection with system rebuild). Of course, once a dual rate structure
is established in a single franchise area, subscribers can be switched over to the new rate
strUcture as they are convened to the rebuild. However, this does not work where, as here,
rate and capacity differentials exist between two communities served by the same system.
2 .=:-
:..J-.J
- 3 -
Not only has this been confusing to customers, it has not permined Cox to fully
recover the costs of the added services that it is providing to customers through the upgrade
in Chula Vista. As a practical maner, Cox should be permined to charge at least the same
rates in Chula Vista for a 750 MHz system as in other areas where the system has been
rebuilt to 550 MHz or 750 MHz, and should not be prohibited from doing so simply because
of the timing of the upgrade and because it was only able to me 450 MHz rate forms when
rate regulation was fIrst enacted. Absent the ability to use a Form 1235 or Form 1220 to
implement the higher rates in upgraded areas, mere chance dictates which cable communities
are eligible to pay upgraded rates.
The upgrade in Chula Vista occurred in two stages. Between 1990 and 1991, a fiber
optic network was constructed which, as noted, increased capacity to 450 MHz and
decreased the amplifiers in cascades serving the city from over 30 to 16. ~I The second phase
of the upgrade increased system capacity to 750 MHz, adding yet additional fIber to the
system, and increased the number of nodes from 9 (serving about 12,000 homes each) to 143
(serving fewer than 800 homes each). The attached declaration of Stephen Gautereaux, Vice
President Technical Development of Cox referenced below, notes that the upgrade provided
all subscribers substantial improvements in service quality and reliability.
The substantial expense incurred by Cox in connection with the system upgrade was
not recoverable under the Commission's standard benchmark regulations, which compute
1.1 See Exhibit 2 (Declaration of Stephen Gautereaux at 1 5.a.).
3-0
- 4 -
maximum permitted rates for regulated services based on a survey of systems from 1992.
The Commission's new Form 1235, however, permits Cox to recover upgrade costs.
Accordingly, Cox f1led FCC Form 1235 with the City to recover the costs of the
upgrade)' Additionally, subsequent to the FCC Form 1235 f1ling, Cox also filed FCC Form
1240, which reflected cost-based adjustments to the basic tier rateY On August 27, 1996,
Jay Smith, representing the City's consultant, Public Knowledge, Inc., recommended that the
City approve Cox's Form 1240 BST rate of $9.74.2/ However, Public Knowledge disputed
the rate adjustment proposed in Cox's Form 1235, and the City followed Public Knowledge's
recommendation.
Public Knowledge disputed Cox's Form 1235 rate adjustment for three principal
reasons. First, the consultant concluded that because two-thirds of the upgrade (200 MHz of
the 300 MHz) will not immediately be used to provide regulated services, 66.67% of the
upgrade costs should be excluded as not "used and useful. ,,~I Second, the consultant found
that Cox's allocation of upgrade costs based on channel counts was improper because no
'il Exhibit 3 (Cox's FCC Form 1235 Filing).
QI See Exhibit 4 (Cox's FCC Form 1240 Filing).
II See Exhibit 5 (Smith Letter at 1-2). This appeal does not concern that form
because the City approved the rate computed under Form 1240.
~I Id. at 2. As discussed below, Cox excluded 27 % oLthe upgrade costs, reflecting
the fact that 550 MHz of capacity of a total 750 MHz was then in use.
3-1
- 5 -
channels had yet been added to the BST in connection with the upgrade.2' Third, the
consultant found that Cox had already recovered its full $1.20 cap (plus programming costs)
for "going forward" channels added before the filing of FCC Form 1235 and should not be
permitted a "double recovery" of such channels through Form 1235.lQ' Therefore, Public
Knowledge recommended that the City deny the Form 1235 rate adjustment in its entirery.)lI
Based on this recommendation, the City adopted its Order approving Cox's Form
1240 rate adjustment and denying, in its entirety, Cox's Form 1235 rate adjustment. Cox
now files this Appeal of the City's Order.
n. Standard of Review,
The City's Order should be reversed and remanded because the City declined to
attribute any justifiable costs of the upgrade to the basic service tier and unreasonably
rejected Cox's proposed method of cost allocation. The Commission provides franchising
authorities with the discretion to resolve questions or ambiguities regarding the rate-setting
2.1 ld. at 2-3.
10/ ld. at 3.
11/ Though Public Knowledge also noted that Cox initially did not reflect projected
revenue for the activated capacity from, for example, advertising revenue, Cox subsequently
revised its Form 1235 to submit relevant information in this regard. In addition, when
submitting the revised Form 1235, Cox also revised its cost allocation to exclude 27 % of the
upgrade costs, reflecting the fact that 550 MHz of capacity of a total 750 MHz was then in
use.
3-3
- 6 -
process, and defers to their decisions if supported by a reasonable basis.l1/ In adopting a rate
order, however, "a franchising authority must make a reasoned decision based on the
record. "11' In this case the record reflects that the City abdicated its responsibility when it
denied the rate increase because it did not take into account the evidence which the Company
presented.
Second, when reviewing a local franchising authority's rate decision, the Commission
must determine whether the franchising authority followed statutory and regulatory
requirements, and whether its decision is fully consistent with the Commission's rate
regulations and policies.~1 The Commission gives no deference to the franchising authority's
interpretation of the Commission's regulations.lll The City chose not to follow the policies
set out in the Commission's order adopting interim cost of service rules which recognized
that operators could use Form 1235 to substantiate costs incurred in improving signal quality
12/ Third Order on Reconsideration, 9 FCC Rcd 4316, 4345 (1994).
13/ Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 8 FCC Rcd
5631, 5715 n.337 (1993).
14/ See, e.g., Century Communications Corporation d/b/a Yuma Cablevision, 10
FCC Rcd 11080, 11080 (1995) (citing Report and Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 5731 and Third
Order on Reconsideration, 9 FCC Rcd at 4341).
15/ Cablevision Systems of Southern Connecticut, Limited Partnership, 10 FCC Rcd
1163, 1164 nn.12, 14 (1995) (rejecting Connecticut's interpretation of the benchmark
regulations); see also Vantage Cable Associates, L.P., 10 FCC Rcd 1609, 1610 (1994)
(rejecting as unreasonable a franchising authority order that misinterpreted the Commission's
external cost pass-through regulations).
3- (.1
i
- 7 -
and system reliability .~' Because the City failed to meet these two standards, its Order must
be reversed and remanded.
III. The City Erred in Disallowing All Form 1235 Upgrade Costs.
The City's Order disallows all of the costs associated with Cox's system upgrade.
This fmding is based on a flawed analysis of Cox's Form 1235 filing by the City's consultant
that failed to apply the appropriate rules and policies to the system's upgrade rate
justification.
A. Cox's Upgrade Is "Significant."
The Commission's Interim Cost Order implemented an abbreviated cost of service
alternative using the Form 1235 for" significant prospective capital expenditures used to
improve the quality of service or to provide additional services. "lJJ The Commission
determined that this would "provide an appropriate way to implement the goals of the Cable
Act of 1992, to promote the availability of diverse cable services and facilities, encourage
economically justified upgrades, and reduce regulatory burdens, while ensuring reasonable
rates for regulated services. "1!' Five factors determine the permissibility of network upgrade
costs for a cable operator to receive such rate increases:
16/ Repon and Order and Funher Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 9 FCC Rcd 4527
(1994) ("Interim Cost Order").
17/ Id., 9 FCC Rcd at 4672.
1li/ I d. at 4674-4675.
2-)0
~..J
- 8 -
(1) that the upgrade be "significant" and require added capital investment, such as
expansion of bandwidth capacity, conversion to fiber optics or system rebuilds; (2)
that the upgrade actually beIlefit subscribers through improvements in the regulated
services subject to the rate increase; (3) that the upgrade rate increase not be assessed
until the upgrade is complete and providing benefits to subscribers of regulated
services; (4) that the operator demonstrate its net increase in costs, taking into account
current depreciation expense, projected changes in maintenance and other expenses,
and changes in other revenues; and (5) that the operator allocate its costs to ensure
that only costs allocable to subscribers of regulated services are imposed upon them.12/
The City did not dispute that Cox's rate filing satisfies the first, third, and fourth
factors of the Commission's test. Clearly, Cox's $27 million upgrade is "significant" by any
standard. The capital investment is substantial, and the upgrade increases bandwidth to 750
MHz and entails a complete system rebuild.;1Q/ As discussed below, the upgrade replaced
coaxial plant with fiber optics, thereby substantially improving signal quality and system
reliability, thus benefitting regulated customers.
B. Cox's Upgrade Benefits Customers Through Service Improvements.
Although the City acknowledged that Cox's upgrade was substantial, it was unwilling
to conclude that the upgrade warranted an adjustment of basic service rates because Cox did
not add channel capacity on the basic service tier, and it was unable to reach a conclusion
regarding Cox's showing of enhanced service quality. The City also disputed the
methodology that Cox used to allocate costs of the upgrade to the basic service tier.
19/ Id. at 4675-676; Form 1235 Public Norice.
20/ Similarly, neither the City's Order nor the consultant's analysis dispute that
Cox's upgrade complies with factors three and four.
3- 1\
- 9 -
The consultant states that because the incremental increase in regulated basic channels
was zero, and because no channel~ere added to basic, Cox has not demonstrated that the
upgrade actually benefits subscribers:
. . . there is no demonstrated benefit to basic service subscribers since the
channel allocation for the basic tier was not changed by the upgrade.
Therefore, none of the upgrade costs should be allocated to basic. Further,
the allocation between CPS and other services should be based on the channel
additions directly associated with the upgrade. . . .".w
This position clearly is contrary to the Commission's rules and policies regarding network
upgrade rate justifications as discussed in its Interim Cost Order and its Final Cost Order.
In fact, nowhere in the cost of service rulemaking proceedings does the Commission
enunciate such a policy. Indeed, if cable operators were required to add channels as a
condition to implementing rate increases under the 1235 methodology, it is reasonable to
assume that such a policy would have been clearly stated by the Commission.ll1 By
disallowing any allocation of costs to regulated services, the City's Order contravenes the
Commission's policy that a total disallowance of costs is unreasonable if the record
demonstrates that some costs are justified.IlI
21/ Exhibit 5 (Smith Lener at 2-3).
22/ It is also relevant that the Commission's 20 cent price cap methodology was
based on historical survey data from 1986 to 1991. During that period, very few cable
operators were constrUcting fiber plant, and therefore the cap simply could not incorporate
"substantial" upgrade costs. Sixth Order on ReconsideraIion, Fifth Repon and Order, and
Seventh Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 10 FCC Rcd 1226, 1300 (1994).
23/ See Falcon Cablevision, " 12-13; Tele-Media, , 9, n.14; Novato Cable
(continued.. .)
3-\.)..
- 10 -
Cox demonstrated to the City that the upgrade will provide substantial benefits to
Cox's customers through improvements to regulated service. It submined during the course
of discussions with the City the certification of the system's Vice President of Technical
Development which outlined the technical improvements made possible by the upgrade.~!
These included the construction of a fiber-rich HFC network, which is more expensive but
substantially more reliable with bener picture quality than the previously-used predominantly
coaxial plant. The fiber configuration under deployment is redundant, and thus a failure of
one loop does not result in loss of service to customers. The upgrade also decreased the
number of required amplifiers, increased the number of fiber nodes from 9 to 143, and
dramatically decreased total customer outage hours from 14,909 hours per month to 700
hours per month. Each of these technical improvements also enhanced the quality of the
signal received by subscribers. ~/
23/ (. ..continued)
Company, 10 FCC Rcd 5158.
24/ See Exhibit 6 (Letter from William Fitzsimmons to Jay Smith). In an effort to
resolve the issues which are now on appeal, these discussions with the City also included two
telephone conferences with representatives of the City, Cox, and Hugh Boyle, Chief
Accountant of the Cable Bureau's Finance and Compliance Division in October, 1996.
25/ See Exhibits 6 (Letter from Fitzsimmons to Smith at 4), 2 (Declaration of
Stephen Gautereaux at " 5, 6).
;;? - I ;<,
J ~
- 11-
Curiously, the city ignored the detailed infonnation that was provided by the system
regarding the enhancements in signal quality and reliability.~ The City stated that "[t]he
detennination of an appropriate price for these improvements is a matter to be decided by a
detailed rate study, whether by the FCC, Cox, the City or a paid consultant" and that "to
determine whether this rate is appropriate would entail a more detailed study of the service
quality and reliability factors and overall rate filing. "12/ But the City's responsibility was not
to throw up its hands, but to consider the evidence and infonnation that was presented and
reach a detennination. Cox submits that the real reason the City failed to give any weight at
all to the evidence of enhanced signal reliability and quality that resulted from the rebuild
was because it concluded that, absent the addition of any channels to the basic tier, Cox was
not entitled to any credit for the rebuild notwithstanding demonstrable improvements in
service. W
26/ The City's conclusion in its Council Agenda Statement that data for service
outages was only available for a short period of three and one-half months, and that therefore
seven year nationwide data might be more appropriate, is unreasonable. As the declaration
of Stephen Gautereaux demonstrate, after the 750 MHz upgrade was completed, the total
customer outage hours was dramatically reduced. See Exhibit 2 (Declaration of Stephen
Gautereaux at , 5d). This was the best and most accurate demonstration that the upgrade
had substantially improved the quality of service, and the City failed to give it any weight
whatsoever. A requirement to wait seven years for reliable data would mean an operator
could never show improvements to the system unless it added channels - an outcome clearly
not intended by the Commission, as discussed supra.
27/ See Exhibit 7 (Council Agenda Statement at 8-9).
28/ This position was initially expressed by the City's consultant in its letter to Mr.
Gerald Young of the City of Chula Vista dated August 27, 1996, and in the conversation that
(continued...)
3-14
- 12 -
To reflect the costs attributable to enhanced signal quality in the regulated rate-base,
Cox adopted a reasonable methodology, asserting that only 73 % of the upgraded plant - 550
MHz of a total 750 MHz system - is "used and useful." The signal quality and service
enhancement affects all customers over all services delivered, both regulated and unregulated
services. Because the entire system was replaced, it was reasonable for Cox to treat all
active capacity as an "improvement," rather than just the increase in capacity from the
previous system (a 450 MHz system) to the new system (a 750 MHz system of which 550
MHz is active). Therefore, Cox allocated costs based on total channels on the system, not
JUS! the channels added as a result of the upgrade. This was explained in detail to the City
and to the City's consultant in an October 10, 1996 letter to Jay Smith of Public
Knowledge.r!1
Notwithstanding this explanation, the City adopted the consultant's conclusions, which
were inconsistent with the Commission's regulations, and disallowed the rate adjustment
represented by the upgrade in its entirety .:illl As the Commission previously has noted, a
franchising authority may not entirely disallow a regulated rate, permissible costs, or assets
in an operator's rate base if the record supports the rate or inclusion of at least some of the
claimed costs or assets. The Commission, for example, has held on several occasions that
28/ (.. . continued)
the consultant had with Mr. Boyle.
29/ See Exhibit 6.
30/ See Exhibit 1 (Order at 1).
3-1'5
- 13 -
the total exclusion of intangible assets from a cable operator's rate base in the context of a
cost of service showing when the record supports inclusion of at least some of those assets is
unreasonable.:!!1 The Commission also has held that setting rates for regulated installations at
zero was unreasonable and inconsistent with applicable regulations.ll' In this case, Cox has
presented uncontroverted evidence that the system serving the City's cable customers has
realized demonstrable and quantifiable improvements in signal quality and system reliability;
neither the City nor its consultant disputed that all customers would realize these
improvements.
C. Cox's Upgrade Cost Allocation Method is Reasonable.
After Cox determined that 73 % of upgrade costs reasonably could be allocated to the
provision of regulated and unregulated services, it allocated those costs based on the total
channels provided on each tier. But the City's consultant, having disregarded the benefit of
the upgrade to basic subscribers, suggested that Cox's allocation of costs among basic, CPS,
and "other" services was unreasonable because Cox allocated costs based on total activated
channels.ll' The consultant posits two explanations for its conclusion. First, it suggests that
31/ See Falcon Cablevision Petitions for Review of Local Rate Orders of the City of
Thousand Oaks, California, DA 96-1485 (reI. Sept. 10, 1996) " 12-13; Tele-Media
Company of Western Connecticut Petition for Review of Local Rate Orders of the Connecticut
Department of Public Utility Control, DA 96-91(rel. Feb. 26, 1996) , 9, n.14.
32/ See NovalO Cable Company d/b/a Chambers Cable of NovalO, 10 FCC Rcd
5158, 5159 (1995).
33/ Exhibit 5 (Smith Lener at 2-3).
3-\(0
- 14 -
Cox may not adjust rates for added CPS tier channels under the "caps" method and also file a
Form 1235 to reflect network upgraae costs.~ Apparently, the consultant believes that Cox
would recover twice for the same channels.:l2!
However, the Commission has stated specifically that the Form 1235 Network Upgrade
methodology does permit operators to account for the costs of substantial network upgrades
above and beyond any adjustments made pursuant to the benchmark/price cap approach.~!
When the Commission adopted an abbreviated cost of service showing for system network
upgrades, it stated that, under the new approach:
34/ ld.
35/ "By now claiming the upgrade cost that in part relates to the CPS capacity
associated with the 'cap' rate additions Cox would be recovering twice for the added
capacity, once in the 'cap' addition and again in the upgrade cost allocated to the CPS tier."
Exhibit 5 (Smith Letter at 3). Because the consultant rejects Cox's Form 1235 based, in
part, on its concern with this alleged double-recovery for CPS channels added, the matter is
properly before the Commission on appeal.
36/ The first benchmark approach was adopted in 1993. See Repon and Order and
Funher Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 8 FCC Red 5631 (1993). The Commission revised
its benchmarks and adopted its quarterly price cap methodology (along with FCC Form
1210) in its Second Order on Reconsideration, Founh Repon and Order, and Fifth Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, 9 FCC Rcd 4119 (1994). The annual price cap methodology, for use
with FCC Form 1240, was adopted by the Commission in Implementation of Sections of the
Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Rate Regulation,
Thineenth Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd. 388 (1995).
Base rates computed under the benchmark approach are compared to average rates of
comparable systems based on certain variables, rather than the pure costs that the system
incurs to provide regulated service. Thus, the benchmark does not reflect a specific system's
upgrade costs. Similarly, price cap adjustments for channel changes reflect only license fees
and permitted per-channel adjustments, rather than the allocated costs of upgrades.
~-1'7
- 15 -
. . . operator[ s] would be permitted to set a rate based on two elements. The first
element is the benchmark rate, as governed by the Rate Order and the price cap.
The second element will be tlle capital improvement add-on. The sum of these
two elements will yield the maximum allowable rate that might be charged to
subscribers.JlI
The Commission reiterated this policy in its order adopting final cost of service rules: "The
recoverable amount of such capital improvements may be added to a system's benchmark rate,
as adjusted by the price cap, to generate a maximum permitted rate."l!! Thus, it is clear that the
Commission intended for operators to recover e>..1emal costs, inflation, and going-forward
channel additions under the price caps, and additional upgrade costs under a cost-based
approach.-'2!
37/ Interim Cost Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 4676 (emphasis added).
38/ Second Repon and Order, First Order on Reconsideration, and Funher Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 2220, 2295 (1996) ("Final Cost Order").
39/ The Commission's vision of this two-prong rate-setting methodology was fIrst
voiced in its cost-of-service notice of proposed rulemaking:
We also solicit comment on whether we could establish an abbreviated cost-of-service
showing for significant prospective capital expenditures used to improve the quality of
service or to provide additional services. Under this abbreviated showing, operators
seeking to raise rates to recover the costs of a planned upgrade would submit only the
costs of the upgrade. . . . mhe costs of the upgrade would then be added to the rare
permitted under rhe benchmark and price cap approach to the extent costs could not
be recovered under that approach.
Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition
Act of 1992 - Rate Regulation, Norice of Proposed Rulemaking, MM Dkt. No. 93-215,
FCC 93-353 (reI. Jul. 16, 1993) 1 75 (emphasis added).
3- /3
- 16 -
As discussed above, the City also erred when it refused to permit Cox to recover for
improvements in signal quality ancheliability of the entire system. Cox's allocation
methodology recognizes the benefits that the upgrade provides to all subscribers for all
services provided, not just newly added services. The City's conclusion that no costs may be
allocated to regulated services, therefore, is unreasonable and the City's Order must be
reversed and remanded.
3- r c(
- 17 -
IV. Conclusion.
For the reasons set forth herein, Cox respectfully requests that the Commission
reverse and remand the City's decision with explicit instructions to conform the decision to
the applicable Commission policies and regulations.
By: .
Esq.
ALBERTSON
[ d Liability Company
. eAve., N.W.
. 20036
Peter C. Godwin, Esq.
444 N. Michigan Avenue
Suite 3600
Chicago, IL 60611
Its Anorneys
November 21, 1996
;)-",{"
-,'X j
'-'" <.'^'
Federal Communications Commission
DA 96-2070
Before the
Federal Commuuications CommissIon
W..hington, D,C, 20554
ATTACHMENT 4
In the Matter of
)
)
)
) CUID No. CA0329 (ehula Vista)
)
)
)
.~,_. ,t__,.~..
Cox Communications
Complaint Regarding
Cable progr.mming Services Tier
Rate Increase
".-", ,. -.---..--.....-........:.;-.
:.'_~: ~o~..::'..e.21i~
S!\.....t:"CC: C~B
ORDER
Adopted: December 6, 1996
Released: December 11, 1996
. ,- . ,. -,
By the Chief..Finmci"J. f,nalysis and C-ompiiance DiYision, Cable Sen~ces Bureau;
I. In this Order we consider a complaint concerning the May J, 1996 rate increase
by Cox Communications ("Cox") for,Us cable progI"'mm;ng services tier ("CPST") in Chula
Vista, California, CUID No. cA0329. '):ri respon..~ to; this complaint, Cox submitted FCC Form
1235. This Order addresses only the reasonableness of Cox's CPST rate increase of $3.79 that
became effective May 1, 1996. We have already issued an order addressing the TC8Sonablen.ess
of the CPST i-ates prior to the implementation of the rate increase.' We conclude that,
notwithstanding an adjustment, the rate increase Cox implemented on May I, 1996 is not
unreasonable. .
2. Under the Communications Act,' the Federal Communications Commission
("Commi.siori") is ailthorized to review the CPST rates of cable systems not subject to effective
competition 1D ensure that rati:s charged are not unreaso!lll.ble. If the Commission finds the rate
unreasonable:, it shall determine the correct :rate and any refund liability. The
Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("the 1996 Act")' and our rules implementing the new
legislation,' require that complaints against the CPST rates be filed with the Commission by a
franchising authority that has received suliscriber complaint5. A franchising authority may not
, See In the Matter of Cox Communications, lne, and TIme> Mirra.- C.ble Television, Inc., 11 FCC Red 1972
(1995).' .
, communications Act, Section 623(c), as,amendEd, 47 U.S.C. Section 543(e)(3) (1996).
, Pub. 1.. No. 104-104, 110 Sl1It.56 (Febniai-y S, 1996). .
, 1
See Tmplementation of Cable ACt Reform Provisions oftbe Tcleconllll\mieations Act of 1996, FCC 96-154
(released April 9. 1996) ("in/en,. Rules").
If -I
Federal Communieatlons CommJsslon
DA 96-2070
file a crST rate complaint unless, within 90 days after such increase becomes effective, it
receives subscriber complaints.s
3. On October 24, 1996, the City of Chula ViS1a (nthe Cityn), the franchising
authority, filed a complaint against Cox's May 1, 1996 CPST rate increase. In its complaint, the
City certifies that it has received subscriber complaints regarding the CPST rate increase within
90 days after the date the increase first appeared on the subscribers' bills.6 As required by our
rules, the City's complaint also included a copy of the rate justification that Cox submitted to the
franchising authority.
4. We have reviewed the FCC Form 1235 submitted by Cox, and have made one
adjustment. We have adjusted Column C of Line 3h to properly gross-up Cox's income taxes.
This resulted in ~.cQ,1;!Ii'~iip);l,,?f, Cox's Fee FC\'W )2)~ maximum permitted rate for thc projected
period to $18.07.' Notw1fustanrling, this aaj'tJiment; we find that Cox's rate increase is not
unreasonable. Cox must reflect this adjustment in any subsequent rate justifications.7
5. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the
Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. Section 0.321 that the monthly CPST rate increase of $3.79
charged by Cox Cornml!ffiCations in CI:!IP~~o. CA.0329, Chula Vista, California, beginning
May 1, 19961S NOT UNREASONABLE.
6. c:1T IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of tbe Commi<."'on's
rules, 47 C.F:R SectionU.321that the City of Chula Vista's complaint against the CPST rate,
effective May 1, 1996, charged by Cox Communications, in cum No. CA0329, Chula Vista,
California, IS DENTED. ' . .". n
,(
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
T
Elizabeth W. Beaty
Chief, Financial Analysis 1lIld Compliance Division
Cable Services Bureau
, See Communicalions Act, Section 613 (e), as amended. 47 U.S.c. Section 543(cX3) (1996).
. See FCCFonn 329 Complaiot filed by the County d.ted September 16, 1996.
, .
, This finding i. based solely on the representations of Cox. Should infmmation come 10 our attention that these
representations WQ"C materia.!Iy inaccurate, we; reserve the right tel take appropriate actlo:a. ThIs Order is not to be
con.nued as a [mding that we have accepred as correct any spectfic entry, ""planation Or argument made by any
party to this proceeding not specifically a<!lJrgsecj herein.
2
L-j-'L
Federal Communications Commission
I
96-Xx..Xi<
I
Before the
Fedeid.1 Communications Commission
Washington. D.C 20554
In rh~ Matter of
)
.,
)
) cum No. CA0329 (ebula Vista)
)
)
)
)
Cox Communications
Order Regardmg.
Cable Programming Services Tier Rau:s
ERRATUM TO 1>A 96-2ll70
Adopted:
Released:
By the Chief. Financial Analysis and Compliance Division. Cable Services Bureau:
Paragraph 4 of Cox Commw1icari0l15. DA 96-2070. released December 11. 1996. is
corrected to read as [ollows: :
,
4. We have reviewed the FCC Form 1235 submined by Cox. and have made OIle
"djll:51menL We havc adjusted Column C of Line 3h to properly ;;1'os5-., :::o~'s income tax,"s.
This resulted in a correction of Cox's FCC Form 1235 maxImum permitted rate for the projected
period to $20.57. Ne>twithslanding., this adjustrnenL we find that Cox's rate increase is I1flt
unre3sonable. Cox must reflect Uus adjustment in any subsequdnt rate justifications.' !
FEDERAL COMMUN1CATIONS COMMlSSION
~~\';\.b~'- L0.&..-ctj
Elizabe-J W. Beary
Chief, Financilll !\nalysis and Compliance Division
Cable Services Bureau
,
1 This find.in~ is based sokly on the representations of Cox. Should information come to our attention that thpe
rcpresentatinn~ were n1alerially inaccurate. we reserve the right to lake appropriRte action. This Order is not to; be
constn.lCd as .... finding thlil we h~ve ~ccepted us C'C"IrrtCI any SpeC\flC enny. explanation or argument: made by ~n)'
pnl-ry to thIs prClce~ding. nm spl,;cillc~\ly nddre~sed herem. \
4--3
F
t f'=8cfeldl Communications Commissior:
Washln:JtD:l, D.C. 2:1554
Appl'ove::l ,:>y OM3 3D5G-0555
,
Abbreviated Cost of Service Filing
For Cable Network Upgrades
- ,
-1..c::...G. :'
/ I,/, - /
P,' /I 1/
/J~/tdff v~f/
Community Unit or System Operating Name Icommunity Unit ID - CUID(s) I ,
COX COMMUNICATIONS SAN DIEGO CA0329
Name of Cable Operator
cox COMMUNICATIONS SAN DIEGO
Mailing Address i
,
5159 FEDERAL BLVD. !
City I~tate I ,
SAN DIEGO CA ,
Ownership of Franchise Of Sys'tem {PlaCe an "X" to the left of the appropriate answer.l:
X coCorp Sub~hapter S
..- -.-.,..,.. i
I
Partnership Sole Proprietor Other ,
-..--
I
Person to contact regarding this torm: I
I
WILIAM FITZSIMONS ,
,
Telephone I Fax Number I
6t9-266-54tO 619-266-5540 i
,
Lo~al Franchising Authority ,
CITY OF CHULA VISTA ,
,
Mailing Address !
276 FOURTH AVENUE
City I ~tate I I
,
CHULA VISTA CA ,
This 10rm is being med for: (Check One)
x
Pre- Approval
OR
Final Approval
Note: If Final Approval filinQ, attach all Pre-Approval filings, if any, releting to the upgrade.
Scope of Fiing: (Check One)
x
Franchise level
OR
System level
Note: Cable System is defined in Section 60217) of the Communications Act.
Page 1 of 8
F::F
4-y-
f::ed"et;;ll Communications CO:"n:"nL.o;sJon
WSshtlgtO:'l, D.C, 20554
,,;JlJI.....v<;:... '-'1 .......,.,~ ~~-- ----
Abbreviated Cost of Service Filing
For Cable Network Upgrades
Part I. OuaUfication for Upgrade Rate Adjustment
A. Significance of Upgrade Qualification
1. Does the upgrade meet the minimum 1echnical specifications described in the Instructions for Part I.
Qualification for Upgrade Rate Adjustment, Line 1?
y Yes
No
I
2. If "No' was answered in question 1, attach a brief description of how subscribers to Basic and C.bl"
Programming Service Tiers will benefit from the capital improvements.
3. Complete the following items to determine the oost of the capital improvement as a percentage of r~8
bese (investment in cable property, pl.nt and equipment for the area over which the improvement wIll be
,
used): i
A. The net upgrade rate base
a. Total rate base after upgrade
C. Percentage of upgrade to 10tsl rate base
$
$
$.27,298
$41,754
65.38%
B. Used & Useful Qualification
If this form has been completed for a pre-approval, please skip to line 3.
1. Has tha upgrade baan completed?
X Yes
No
2. If question 1 was answered 'yes", enter the date the upgrade was completed and began providing
service to subscribers of regulated services:
3. If the Ph8sed-ln Approach is elected. 8rt.ch . description 01 the subsections involved and the projected
dates on which the upgrade will be completed and providing service to subscribers 01 rate regulated
services within those subsections.
lmoerial Bescb
Santo.
Cbule Vis",
NBtional Cit\'
NOV-95
FEB .96
MAY -96
MAY -96
Page 2 01 8
4--5
I
I
I
,
i
!
i
FCC Form 1235
fRbrudry 1996
!
l'ri,,,,
~,. "f>:"".
'~.,'<F>-
J" '
t
& ,
~._./ /
r.,'
.'
,
I
r.l:::Om""f\r\lC;3~::or.-.-n~Ll"n
A.,:>pmYElCorDME~
Abbreviated Cost of Service Filing
For Cable NehUork upgrades
Part II. Upgrade Revenue Requirement Computation
,. Na~ Upg:".:l.CJe Rate B:lSe (WoftsneetA, Line 49)
2. Ret!rn on Invec1ment
3, Rate ~1 Retum Pe~ntage
b. Com~lied ~h.m on Upgrade R:a~ Bne (Une 1 x Line 2a)
3, A1ICManoe for IOCQme TIllre~
a. Federsl1ncome Tax R&te
b. S::ate Income Tax tult
c:.. Compuled Rem on Upt:l!'3de RBt2 Base (l.ile 2b)
d. k'rt!lf6$t Expanse ~lated to Upgrade (W'::>r1csheet A. Une ge)
e. Dis.1I'itluti:ms (NDrr-C Corp, Fil~ On!)')
t, Conl^bvt<>.. (l\bn-C Coo'p, "'''''' Only)
g, RetumAmounlSUtlject10 IncomeTa>:
11. IncomQ T ilX AllowJ:inQW
4. ProJ~ Nel.lmpact of Upgrade on O?eraung
8cpef'1$e5 (WorlGheet A, lil'U:!: Sa)
5. N8~ Re-..enue and Income AdjU:Slment:l
Related to U~de (\f'iorla;heEr. A. tJoe '12e)
E. iotal UptJl":lde RevenlJe ReqLirement rUne 2 -. :3 '" 4 . 5'
(a)
(b)
'"
Part III. Alloce1lon of Upgratie RIJvttllUB Re~uil'BmBnl tD ~ie and Cable Progl2Jnmlng SDl'Vlee TitUS
,. Upgrade Revenue Requirements.. (?9rt II, Lire S)
Z. N,,:TIbBr of Subse.t\bers
:t Annu:ll Revenue Requremenl Per Subscribe- (Une1 ! Line.2)
4. Monthly Nctwo.1\ Up~de ACId-on [une ::. J 12.)
5. SeJe:::led method of ~ub6oriber rt!CCI\l9fy: (Chack Ona)
(a) (b) (c'
BST CPST-1 CPST -2 TOTAl.
.$1.194 52,588 $3,762
53 62
Sl9 S42 561
$1.57 P,48 $5.05
CPST. & BST
OR
CPST. Only
Pro'alide der.aiption foraTlocation of CPST Rit\oQnl,NOl! RoqUi1"Ql'TlQ:"It to C~S TIR~
C&R'I1FICATIOl'" STATIM[.f\o'T
WII..I.::-J".:.. FALSE SfATEMENTS MADE ON "flits FORM. ME l'UNISRAELE BY 'P(NE AND/OR IMl"RlSONMENT
(U.S. CO:)E.1'ITLE 1t. SECnOh: 1001), AND/OR FO:RF'EITl.JRE (Us. CODE, TITLE 47. SECTJON S03).
1 cortif',. thB:.1N: ~ made in thi, fonn Iml UUc IUld l;0rr6t\ ~ Ihe bI$I: of my 1cn.l;IWI.da~ aDd b::lid'; .nel are made: ill lEOQd faith.
"'_wTiu" ~_c~__o..Fam: S~
,
,
0... 1,kdaleNwll"tNr.
p___ ~_o i=CCfcom'l225
4-- 0
~
"'
"
c
~
a
~
IfJ
C>
"'C
tll
-
Cl
Co
:::l
..'<:
-
~
Cl
Z
Cl
:is
tll
U
-
.E
Cl
c:
u...
Cll
.~
~
eLl
en
-
o
~
III
o
U
"'C
C>
....
co
':;:
Cll
..
..c
.0
<(
c
o
-:
E
~
u
~
~i1)
-~
~ 0>
eN
~o
1;0
I; -
o C
0-5,
'ii.=
- "'
o ..
" ..
~~
I (") c::> 0 0)1 f"- f"- a a
~ u; '" """ 1'-1 0 0 "" .,.
~ m (") ~I CD (D (")
CD ." ~ <N- <N-
O <N- <N-
- -
- V> :0:
1:: C
.. ~
C-
O) 0 0
"' iTI N Y>- ~
'"
.S! Ci) ,
ftj 0 f-
Ll CJ)
" !L
oS! "'Cl Ll
:<i 0lJ~
1:l .~ :?
c: ., 0 0
.. "' V> a
'" ~ - Y7 (") o?
-E 0 --"=' , ~ -,-
0 ~ ~
ll) ~ U l-
E 0lJ Cf)
~
a !L
Cl Ll
III
co
< 0 0
-
.. Y>- Y>-
o
C,) I-
< CfJ
- to
Cll
Cll
J::
..
.... 0 0
- CD '" 0 co - 0 l() (D co 0
0
;: f"- N Y>- O> I'- <P.- I'- '<I" r--- (") Y>- o?
OJ) 0 '" N_ - fh N '" '" ~ ~
" cri ~ ~
~~ ..... I'- C\I '" -
N <R- N Y>- Y>- .....
III """ ....
ID
M z w rn ~
c: . 0 C I- ~
E '" - z ~
- .... ~
u OJ) '" w w ,
UI '" ,
:J Ql c: 0) C '" C!l :;; 0
'- e U> ~ f- ~
iii E c '" co D- en "'
c: ...J Q) ., ., :;)
x C. [!) :::l III
0 W c: c:
Ll E g x ~ D.....J 0 ., c:
g ;:I w ::> E I- 0 :::;
~ x <
rn iii IJJ 0 E
"5 ~ Ll. ::> W
W ~ c Orn IJJ g :J
D r.n 11 0 I- !!!.
:J :;::l I- - 5
-c < 0 CJ) .ll! Urn C,) w
:'E c: Q) m "'Cl -c <.> <w w z c
~ 0 '" w l!! Q) ~ o..rn c: ~
~ :::l I- .. ~iTI ~
0 c Cll w C
0> U> ~ jjj jjj C!)
co '- ll) "'Cl D I-D.. rn c: Z
U N u ., .J'l
o? en .. E c C a: a: wx :z Q) < 11.
X LQ Q) :J W 1: IJJ a; 6i w::>
0 .9 ll.. Q) C c zw
0 <( - CI .~ E D '" '" Iii DC!) !L C a: E :::l0
- .. ~ D X
U U '" "0 .5! in w 0: 0: iii wz w w ~ ~ Zl-
C W -'" I- a: f-- I- WD
'- '" ll) C!) c: c I- .0
1Il OJ '- "'Cl " ~ U C,)I- U '" '0 >w
c 11. ID w< CIJ
c. .!;; Q) c: W ~ ~ "'Cl W C) <I; WI-
Cll :::l .,c: W
0 .0 '" '- ., c: ~ .., - - ~5
~ u:: E C ~ ID I- 0 c: OW a: 0 Cll III
'0 e J:: Cll '" ]' 0:0.. W .c .c:
'0 ::J '" W a: .r= .r= a: ww
Z 0- :0: 0 0..0 .... 0 0
OIl D Z c.. Ll Ll :::l Z c.. ZO:
E 5 l!! Q)
'" '" c c:;; ~ N
z Ll C ::; - N '" -.i .0 '" .... eO .,; - ~ ....
&0
~
co
-
co
...
C\I
~
y- - r)
~ V>
M ~
;:::~
E ~
~ 2
uil
u...
u.
co
'0
'"
8'
c.
~
~
~
m
>
~
~
<
(/)
Cl>
"
al
~
Cl
Q.
=>
~
..
o
~
Cl
z
.!!
.c
al
(,)
~
.E
Cl
c
u::
CIl
.!:!
t:
Cl
rIJ
-
o
....
Ol
o
(,)
"
.a
III
'>
Cl>
~
.c
.l:l
<:
!l
i
<>
m
c~
.!!~
- ~
~o
- N
C
~U
EO
~~
m
- c
~:E
~ m
m .
"'-;:
~
o
rn
(j; ~
0.. C
o =
__ii:
011)_
-0
E 9 E
lU::l '"
Z()O
N
't:
'"
Eo
l1>
~
.2
-
'"
"
.2
~
"E-
m
CD
~
~
;;;
E:
Cl
..
rI>
0:(
~
..
o
t.>
<C
-
'"
'"
-'=
III
-=
o
s:
c
o
'iii~'O
g ~.......
<r::
..
o
o
o
e
'"
;::
III
E
.,
ill
u;
o ..-
U .
-00",
III --" en
1Q-o..
'-' ()
.2
<(
~
<ll
-'"
(5
;:z
IDNOCO
t- co EA- U')
ro~ 0
~... ~
N
r-
(J)
ll.
()
U'> r- 0 N
0) 0) W. 0)
U'>"<l" 0
out ..:
.... T""
..... ....
I-
en
CD
T-coorn
Ln ...... f::I7 to
CON co
~.(,f7 v
<R- <A-
o
<A-
c
.2
Q
2
U;
0:
o
U
g>
-;:::
'" w
o rn
"0 <(
<ll lD
en W
::l I-
~~!!~
~3cw
.~ ':: ~ 0
w~q}ct
., _'" 0::
"'O()~C)
co:<(ll.
al ca L.. =-
1:' :;: ., I-
~.Q=w
D..<(Oz
0:
o
~
~
'-'
oJ>
.,
o
"0
C
'"
~
Q)
.0
E
"
Z
Q)
c
::;
_NM";'
....000
..- <A-'"
Ell- '"
<09-
o
<A-
c>o-.q-
C') <R- N
<R- CJ>
<R-
"oeo
..- <R- 0
Y>- ....
Y>-
;:;-
Z
'" 0-
~i ~~
~ffi~~"
~l5,ct!)~
'" ~ & o..::l
.!;t><:JE
-owu.
e!aco'"
~::;l.Qt-~
OCl)]!Ul7.l
-g-gQ~~~
-- III::Z
:~~~~
a:: !I:-o wx
.. C 1: ~ z w
O.!!!.!!!.!!!OO
Wll.D...,wz
....ccrr....t-
t.>.- <ll (,)
~~~-o~~
OcO:~ow
o.:~~co.:o..
o..()()::lo..o
T"
<II
QI
c
:i
E
:J
rn
~
LOWr-CO
4- - 6
N
U'>
'"
~
[$
..-
01>
o
<R-
o
Ell-
'"
co
CJ>
....
0>
-..-
12
C')
N
"<l"
Ell-
co
N
N
Ell-
C>
.....
o
....
o
<R-
o
.....
W
o
<C
0.:
o
0..
:::>
o
t-
o
W
t-
o:(
...I
W
0.:
W
U)
Z
W
0..
(;)
I-
CI>
W
c::
W
I-
Z
CI>_
1--
z....
w.
::!;O
I- -
(/I l1>
::J G>
..., '"
0...1
<( E
w '"
:;;(/1
o~
(,)w
ZC
m ;:;~
g",Zt!)
CD-oCto..
>cw~
Ci&.~:::>O
w",-f.<Zt-
!--"wo
u-g:;;>w
WU<(~I-
~ .... '- q
O~~I--'
0.:_ WW
o..OOZO::
en
O-N
..- -....
~ ~
"'m
"m
~ ~
- C
E .
If 2
,,~
U"-
...
10
"'5
N
'"
Cl
'"
c..
(I)
c>
"'0
<0
...
tll
c..
~
oX
...
o
~
ell
Z
.!l!
.n
=
U
...
o
-
tll
~
u..
CI
I,)
~
ell
en
...
o
.....
II
o
U
"'0
.s
'"
>
ell
...
..c
..c
<I:
c
o
:i
"
~
o
<>
..
~l1;
- ~
~ 0
- N
~o
EO
E .
o c
<>-s,
roE
~ "'
u .
~~
-
<'>
~
..
C-
O C) CO V 0 .0 c:> 0 0
., ... <'1 0 C'? ~ <F> V LO C'? -
<:: Q) CO LO '" !h m m LO
0 .<:: 0 <I'> ..- - - !h
;:; 0
to ..- ..-
Ll ~ fit
.2 <l:
<l:
"0
l: 'jj) 0 0 0 0 0
'" = fit <I'> fk fI7 fit
~ 0 N
0 ,
iii .,. l-
E - <1)
a..
::: 0
.~ 2
'" :::
'" Q)
<l: E LO t- N m 0 ~ '" 0> 5 0
..... Q)
III uJ ~ m 0> '" '" - N CD ~ (") '"
0 LO V o. - 0> 0> t.n ~ ..-
~m , "" "" fI7 fJ7 ~ ~
{"l I- 0 .......
<. UJ ..- .......
("l"::: a.. lt7 -
c; Cij 0
1:; ~
..
"'"
0 ..- C) 0> t- o CD <'1 a:> 0
LO ..- to ..- <A- 0 N N ""
~ <0 N a:> .... v V N
l- V U> V .... m ""
UJ "" <A-
m
- uJ (/)
<"> Z -
::: , O~ 0 I- ...
0 ., z ...
13 .... Q) ~ w ,
on CI) w,
:) II> ::: ll: 010 :!; 0
... .. :g 0 I- ...
c;; <: I~ '" ~ 1ft a..
:i (/) ...
::: x II) o ~ ;:) ::J Cl
0 LU ::: ~
0 E .~ a:i 19 ll.- 0 ...,
,g :) ;:)..J I- 0 :::;
!!!. 1ii t:: Jj lO. E Q et E
-= ... ~ ::: o ::I W W ::l
::I W ~ g en I- := f!?-
a rn OS 1-- et 0
"0 c:t 0 t\l oen ..J 0 111
::: Q) l!l "0 "0 ." <l:W w == 0
0 .. 111 2 c> ~ ll.en c::: ~
~ ~ ::J I- '" .. :=z 111 <D Q
::: ... c:t a; Iii ell -w :) zo
'" "0 0 1-0- en ::: '"
<> J'l c::: c:: c:: z eta..
CD ~ c:: ~~ <D C
.. ::l ii w c C "0 W > w::J
U. ell ~ Gl
... 0 .~ E e Q m '" .. 00 ll- e E ::JO
... ~ x
0 -0 0 U; a: a: iii %1-
1i'i ::: W - W Gl ~== 111 W <D we
... " Q) ~ C) I- r:: 5 c:: oI- l- 1-.0 .2
~ Q ... -n <> -n U .- o " ~ >111
Ql ::: c:: <: n. W ~ Ql Q) U1~ rn wO wI-
.S '" '0 UI
0 u: .0 '" ... ::l ..., t: Ol '" ....W c::: .... ... ... e:s
E c ~ :::
- ;.:... Q) I- o '" .~ On. o <D <D
0 .. :) .c '" Ul 0::= .c
~ '0 '" 0 w 0::.<:: .c 0::0 I- 6 ww
cI> 0 Z c: <l: z a.. 0 0 ::l ll. Z a.. 0 %0::
E Q) Q)
m 5 .. r:: c:i ..- .".j
Z 0 e :::; ..- N 0-; --i- L,) '" ,..: ... .,; ..- ~ ..-
4---~
'"'"
n =
~;2
E ?:-
- ~
0"
~~
':.)1.;..
~
'"
"0
'"
'"
0>
'"
"-
..'.~-'.':r.7i.. ';.::
'~;
'''c"''
.4
fe'::tera! Co:nmunicatipns: Commi:::os:ion
Was:hj~too. DC 20554
~~~ov~u ~~ ~~06Be
Abbreviated Cost of Service Filing for Cable Network Upgrades
Worksheet B: Allocation Key
Name of Operator. COX COMMUNICATIONS S Page' 1 of 1
-
Franchise CUID: CA0329
OrganizatiOr'ial Level:
Date of Filing: 35139
Allocation Allocation Methodology Description
Key (a) (b)
1 CHANNELS POST-REBUILD CHANNELS PERCENTAGES
Basic 18 24% :
CPS 41 55%
NCP8-alacarts 4 5%
NCPS-Premium 11 15%
74 1,00 :
,
:
:
:
I
I
:
pall" 7 of 8
FCC Form 1235
February 1995
4- -10
Approved by O~'b--{l6B!i
Abbreviated Cost of Service Filing For Cable Networl<. Upgnldes
Worksheet C: Soppleme.ntall)Qta
,
Name ofOpcmlor. COX COMMUNICATIONS SAN DlEGO P ag.: of
.Franchise CUID: CA0329 DIlle. ofFilln", l/15/96
<m; Lovel, ,
DoI. ofReporto
ior ~ ofthc following property znd equi.pmalt cat::pri~ 3tm: the gross depreciable balance resulting fram Ire: upgrorle
,
~ong with 'the avenge detlrcciarion lift which comprise the ""0 ","menonl balance rot> rted in Work:lbcot A. ,
Co.:.f Method of i
Desaipbon Uo=de YIS. Depreciation ,
,
1. Hoadond ,
2. Tnmsmiuion.Pacilities aDd F...nuicmcn! ,
3. Distnbution filcilities (Trunk, drops, .t<.)
4. Cirroit Equipment (lUlllllillm, power 000=. cto.) ,
S. Maintenance Facilities (gareg:s. warcl:1ou~. ~.) I
,
6. MalntawlCC Vchlek:.s ond Equlpmllll1
7. BuUalngs (otllce)
t. 0= l'Umltlll""JUl Equipmenl ,
,
9. ToTal Upgm1' &me Base
If you wish to dis~ 8D}' oftbe above because they are not readity combined or ifyo\J wish lO add others ,
!
not sbown. reoon: such bela"':
COSIof Method of ,
Lin.Number Description U~ YtS- Depreciation :
10. (Specify) A.,;al Distnbunon 16.028 12 ",.;gb>-lln.
11. (SpecifY) !Undcrground Dimiburion $8.441 12 ~8h1.1i~ :
51"1= Des"", & Enoineeriog :
12.(S;>ecify) S7ZS 12 ",.;ght-lln=
10. (Specify) A.eri.:1l Fiber DisI. SI,606 12 stroigbt-lln= :
II. (Specify) UOQQgrollDO Fiber Dist S6,786 12 5Inigbt-line ,
12.(So'cify) Optic1l Elec%tOD.ics $2,486 12 .".;gh,.line ,
,
page tI of 6
FCC Form 1235
Fa~ry '996
4-11
ATTACHMENT 5
~i 1 59 f ecl8ra: ETJ i. ,2r(}
Self; Jlego Ci~li:~ -iG 921C~'
: 6 ~ 9 i 263 - 92~! 1
Ibi9:26S-554C fa,
July 1 J, 1997
Mr. John Goss
City Manager
City of Chula Vista
276 F ourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
cox
COMMUNICATIONS
RE: Annual filing of Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Forms 1205/1240
Dear Mr. Goss:
On June 30, 1997 you received written notification from Cox Communications that this year's
FCC 1205 andl240 forms would be filed with local franchise authorities on July 15, 1997. The
purpose of this correspondence is to transmit these forms to you for your review.
As you know, these forms adjust the Maximum Permitted Rates (MPR) for the Basic Service Tier
and equipment and installation rates. The MPR establishes the upper limit or ceiling for rates
which can be charged to customers. The rates outlined in the enclosed FCC Forms 1205 and
1240 are NOT actual customer rates, but rate limits Cox Communications cannot exceed.
As the enclosed 1240 Form indicates, effective October 14, 1997, the MPR for the Basic Service
Tier will change from $9.74 to $12.60. This rate change is the result of past inflation adjustments,
channel additions/deletions, increased programming costs and true-up adjustments.
The enclosed 1205 Form outlines the new MPR for equipment and installation rates. Included in
this form is a decrease in the Hourly Service Charge from $31.03 to $30.53 No change will be
occurring in the addressable decoder rental rate of $2.51 per month and the converter box rental
rate will decrease from $1.40 to $.72 per month.
In accordance with FCC regulations, if a franchise authority has not found these rates to be
unreasonable within 90 days from the date of filing, then the rates outlined in the FCC Forms
1205 andl240 may be implemented.
Under FCC rules and regulations, Cox Communications must file an annual FCC Form 1205 and
1240. In conjunction with this annual filing, Cox Communications must adjust actual customer
rates on an annual basis within the rate limits established by filing. You can anticipate the actual
rate changes to occur no earlier than February 15, 1998. As always, you will be notified in
writing of any actual rate changes 30 days in advance.
:J-1
Should you have any questions or require additional information, please don't hesitate to contact
me or Mary Ball, Manager of Government and Community Relations at (619) 266-5203.
Sincerely,
WILLIAM J. ITZ IMMONS
Vice Presiden of mancial Operations
cc: Mary Ball
Enclosure: FCC Form 1205
FCC Form 1240
5-j-/
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, DC 20554
Approved by OMB 3060-0685
FCC FORM 1240
UPDATING MAXIMUM PERMITTED RATES FOR REGULATED CABLE SERVICES
Cable Operator:
Name of Cable Operator
Cox Communications
Mailing Address of Cable Operator
5159 Federal Blvd.
City I~tate I~IP Code
San Die.!O Ca 92105
YES
1. Does this filing involve a single franchise authority and a single community unit?
NO
X
If yes, complete the franchise authority information
below and enter the associated CUID number here;
YES
NO
X
2. Does this filing involve a single franchise authority but multiple community units?
If yes, enter the associated CUIDs below and complete the franchise authority information at the bottom of this page;
3. Does this ruing 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 Attacbed : National Citv. Cbula Vista Imoerial Beacb Santee
Mailing Address of Local Franchising Authority
City State I 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
b. Amended Form 1240 for Basic Tier
c. Original Form 1240 for CPS Tier
d. Amended Form 1240 for CPS Tier
X
X
TO
10/01197 I 09/30/98 (mm/yy)
TO
07/01196 I 06/30/97 (mm/yy)
YES NO
X
X
08/30/96 (mm/dd/yy)
YES NO
X
06/30196 (mm/dd/yy)
FCC Form 1240
July 1996
5. Indicate tbe one year time period ror which you are setting rates (the Projected Period).
6. Indicate the time period for which you are performing a true-up.
7. Status of Previous Filing of FCC Form 1240 (enter an I1X" in the appropriate box)
a. Is this the first FCC Fonn 1240 fLIed in any jurisdiction?
b. Has an FCC Form 1240 been filed previously with the FCC?
If yes, enter the date of the most recent filing: I
c. Has an FCC Form 1240 been filed previously with the Franchising Authority? I
If yes, enter the date of the most recent filing: I
Page 1
Microsoft Excel 5.0 Version
5-.3
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, DC 20554
8. Status uf Previous Filiug uf FCC Form 1210 (enter an "x" in the appropriate box)
a. Has an FCC Fonn 1210 been previously filed with the FCC?
If yes, enter the date of the most recent filing: I
b. Has an FCC Form 1210 been previously filed with the Franchising Authority? I
If yes, enter the date of the most recent filing: I
9. Status of FCC Form 1200 Filing (enter an "x" in the appropriate box)
a. Has an FCC Form 1200 been previously filed with the FCC?
I
If yes, enter the date flied: I
b. Has an FCC Form 1200 been previously filed with the Franchising Authority? I
If yes, enter the date filed: I
10. Cable Programming Services Complaint Status (enter an "x" in the appropriate box)
a. Is this form being flied in response to an FCC Fonn 329 complaint? I
If yes, enter the date of the complaint: I
11. Is FCC Form 1205 Being Included With This Filing
YES
X
11115/95
YES
X
11115/95
YES
X
07/15/94
YES
X
07/15/94
YES
YES
X
12. Selection of "Going Forward" Channel Addition Methodology (enter aD "x" in the appropriate box)
DCheck 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
channels added during the period May 15, 1994 to Dec. 31, 1994?
YES
Approved by OMB 3060-0685
NO
(mm/dd/yy)
NO
(mm/dd/yy)
NO
(mm/dd/yy)
NO
(mm/dd/yy)
NO
X
(mm/dd/yy)
NO
NO
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.
DCheck 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
Line Line Description Basic Tier 2 Tier 3
Al Current Maximum Permitted Rate 1 $9.73531 $17.1821 1
M d I B S b Ob hO
d
Tier 4
e
Tier 5
I
0 ue : u scn ers'ln
. b c d e
Line Line Description Bask Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5
B1 Average Subscribership For True-Up Period 1 63,632 61,499
B2 Average Subscribership For True-Up Period 2
B3 Estimated Average Subscribership For Projected Period 64,302 62,044
Module C: Inflation Infonnation
Line
Line Description
CI Unclaimed Inflation: Operator Switching From 1210 To 1240
C2 Unclaimed Inflation: Unregulated Operator Responding to Rate Complaint
C3 Inflation Factor For True-Up Period 1 [Wks 1)
C4 Inflation Factor For True.Up Period 2 rWks I]
C5 Current FCC Inflation Factor
Page 2
Microsoft Excel 5.0 Version
5-4
1.0000
1.0000
1.0193
1.0183
FCC Fonn 1240
July 1996
Federal Conununications Commission
Washington, DC 20554
Approved by OMB 3060-0685
0 ue : a cu atm2 t e ase Rate
. b c d .
Line Line Dt!SCriptiOD Basic Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 TierS
01 Current Headend Upgrade Segment
02 Current External Costs Segment $0.5630 $6.0106
03 Current Caps Method Segment $1.9073
D4 Current Markup Method Segment
05 Current Channel Movement and Deletion Segment $1.2096 ($1.2409)
06 Current True-Up Segment $0.3161 $0.0602
07 Current Inflation Segment $0.1872 $0.2349
08 Bue Rate [A1-01-D2-03-D4-05-06-07] $7.4594 $10.2099
M dID C I I
h B
Part II: True-Up Period
Module E: Timin Information
Line
Line Description
2
El What Type of True-Up Is Being Performed? (Answer ~ I ~, ~2~, or ~3 ~. See Instructions for a description of these types.)
If "1", go to Module I. If "2", answer E2 and EJ. If "3", answer D, EJ, E4, and ES.
E2 Number of Months in the True-Up Period 1
E3 Number of Months between the end of True-Up Period 1 and the end of the most recent Projected Period
E4 Number of Months in True-Up Period 2 Eligible for Interest
E5 Number of Months True-Up Period 2 Ineligible for Interest
12
3
Module F: Maximum Permitted Rate For True-Uo Period 1
. b c d .
Line Line Description Basic Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier S
FI Caps Method Segment For True-Up Period 1 [Wks 2] $2.0075
F2 Markup Method Segment For True-Up Period 1 [Wks 3]
F3 Chan Mvrnnt Deletn Segment For True-Up Period 1 [Wks' 415] $1.2096 ($1.2409)
F4 True-Up Period I Rate Eligible For InOation [OS+Fl+F2+F3 $8.669 $10.9765
F5 Inflation Segment for True-Up Period 1 [(F4*C3)-F4] $0.1669 $0.2113
F6 Headend Upgrade Segment For True-Up Period 1 [Wks 6]
F7 External Cosls Segment For True-Up Period 1 [Wks 7] $0.9496 $5.6067
F8 True-Up Segment For True-Up Period 1 $0.3132 $0.0602
F9 Max Perm Rate for True-Up Period 1 [F4+ F5+F6+F7+FS] $10.0987 $16.8547
0 ue : axunum ermltte ate or rue- Jo. erIO
. b c d .
Line Line Description Basic Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 TierS
GI Caps Method Segment For True-Up Period 2 [Wks 2]
G2 Marl-up Method Segment For True-Up Period 2 [Wks 3]
G3 Chan Mvmnt Deletn Segment For True-Up Period 2 [Wks' 415]
G4 TU Period 2 Rate Eligible For Innation [D8+ F5+GI +G2+G
G5 Innation 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]
M dIG M
P
dR
F
T
UP. d2
5-5
FCC Form 1240
July 1996
Page 3
Microsoft Excel 5.0 Version
Federal Communications Commission
Washington. DC 20554
Approved by OMB 3060-0685
Module H: True-Un Adiustment Calculation
. b c d .
Line Line Description B.w.: Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5
Adjudment For True-Up Period 1
HI Revenue From Period 1 $6,350,473.60 $12,661,414.12
H2 Revenue From Max Permined Rate for Period I 57,711,188.9982 512,438,554.5678
H3 True-Up Period 1 Adjustment [H2-HI} $1,360,715.3982 ($222,859.5522)
H4 Interest on Period 1 Adjustment $116,963.056 ($19,156.3455)
Adjumneot For Troe--Up Period 2
H5 Revenue From Period 2 Eligible for Interest
H6 Revenue From Max Perm Rate for Period 2 Eligible For Intere
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
HI0 Revenue From Max Perm Rate for Period 2 Ineligible for Intere
HII Period 2 Adjustment Ineligible For Interest (HIO-H9]
Total True--Up Adjusbneot
HI2 Previous Remaining True-Up Adjustment $O.()()()() $O.()()()()
H13 Total True-Up Adju5lment [H3+H4+H7+H8+Hll+HI2] $1,477,678.4543 ($242,015.8977)
H14 Amount of True-Up Claimed For This Projected Period $1,477,678.4543 ($242,015.8977)
H15 Remaining True-Up Adjustment [HI3-HI4] $O.()()()() $O.()()()()
. b c d .
Line Line Description B.w.: Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5
11 Caps Method Segment For Projected Period [Wks 2] 52.6305
12 Marl"1Jp Method Segment For Projected Period [Wk.s 3]
13 Chan Mvrnnt Deletn Segment For Projected Period [Wks 4/5] $1.2096 ($1.2409)
14 Proj. Period Rate Eligible For Inflation [08+F5+G5+ 11 +12-+ $8.8359 $11.8108
I5 Inflation Segment for Projected Period [(I4.C5)-14) $0.1617 $0.2161
16 Headend Upgrade Segment For Projected Period [Wks 6J
17 External Costs Segment For Projected Period [Wks 7J $1.6875 $5.9351
18 Troe-Up Segment For Projected Period $1.915 ($0.3251)
19 Max Permitted Rate for Projected Period [14+15+16+17+18] $12.6001 $17.637
110 Operator Selected Rate For Projected Period
Part III: Projected Period
Module I: New Maximum Permitted Rate
Note: The maximum penniued rate figures do not lake ;nlo account any refund liability you may have. If you have previously been ordered by lhe Commission or your
local franchising aulhoril)' to make refunds, you are not relieved of your obligation to mak such refunds even iflhe permiued rate is higher than the contested raJe or
your current rate.
Certincation 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).
. . . .
Signature
Date
1
aith.
Telephone number
J. Fitzsimmons, V.P. of Financial Operations
Fax Number
(619 266-5410
619 266-5540
Page 4
5-~
Microsoft Excel 5.0 Version
FCC Form 1240
July 1996
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, DC 20554
Worksheet 1 - True-Up Period Inflation
For instructions, see Appendix A of InstruClions For FCC Form 1240
Line Period FCC Inflation F.ctor
101 Month 1 2.21%
102 Month 2 2.21%
103 Month 3 2.21%
104 Month 4 1.83%
105 MonthS 1.83%
106 Month 6 1.83%
107 Month 7 1.83%
108 Month 8 1.83%
109 Month 9 1.83%
110 Month 10 1.83%
III Monthll 1.83%
112 Month 12 1.83%
113 Average lnflalion Factor for True 1.0193
Up Period I
114 Month 13
115 Month 14
116 Month IS
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 lnflalion Factor for True
Up Period 2
5-1
Page 1
Microsoft Exce15.0 Version
Approved By OMB 3060-0685
FCC Form 1240
July 1996
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, DC 20S54
Approved By OMB 3060-0685
Worksheet 2 - Caps Method
True-Up Period, Tier 2
Question 1. Indicate the period for which this worksheet is being used. (Put an "X' in the appropriate box.)
Question 2. Indicate the tier for which this worksheet is being used. (Put an "X' in the appropriate box.)
True-Up
Period
X
Projected Period
Basic
Tier 2
X
Tier 3
Tier 4
Tier 5
Question 3. How long is the fltSt period, in months,for which rates are being set with this worksheet?
Question 4. How long is the second period, in months,for which rates are being set with this worksheet?
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Previous Current Operators Operator's Liceose Fee Total License Total
Line Period Regulated Regulated Net Cap For Cap For Reserve Fee Reserve Operators Total Caps
Channels Channels Change Channels License Fees Used Used Cap Used Adjustment
Added
201 Previous $0.30 $1.20 $1.50
Month
202 Month 1 $0.30 $1.20 $1.50
203 Month 2 $0.30 $1.20 $1.50
204 Month 3 $0.30 $1.20 $1.50
205 Month 4 61 65 4 $0.00 $0.00 $0.30 $1.20 $1.50
206 MonthS $0.30 $1.20 $1.50
207 Month 6 $0.30 $1.20 $1.50
208 Month 7 65 65 0 $0.20 $0.74 $1.04 $1.40 $2.44
209 Month 8 $1.04 $1.40 $2.44
210 Month 9 $1.04 $1.40 $2.44
211 Month 10 65 65 0 $0.00 $0.14 $1.18 $1.40 $2.58
212 Month II $1.18 $1.40 $2.58
213 Month 12 $1.18 $1.40 $2.58
214 Ave e Period 1 Ca Method Ad'ustment $2.0075
215 Month 13
216 Month 14
217 Month 15
218 Month 16
219 Month 17
220 Month 18
221 Month 19
222 Month 20
223 Month 21
224 Month 22
225 Month 23
226 Month 24
227 Ave e Period 2 Ca Method Ad'ustment
5-8
FCC Fonn 1240
July 1996
Page 2
Microsoft Excel 5.0 Version
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, DC 20554
Approved By OMB 3060-0685
Worksheet 2 - Caps Method
Projected Period, Tier 2
True-Up
Period
Projected Period
Question 1. Indicate the period for which this worksheet is being used. (Put an "X" in the appropriate box.)
Question 2. Indicate the tier for which this worksheet is being used. (Put an ")(" in the appropriate box.)
x
TierS
Basic
Tier 2
X
Tier 3
Tier 4
Question 3. How long is the first period, in months,for which rates are being set with this worksheet?
Question 4. How long is the second period, in months,for which rates are being set with. this worksheet?
12
o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Line
Period
Previous
Regulated
Channels
Current
Regulated
Channels
Net
Cbange
Operators
Cap For
Channels
Added
Operator's
Cap For
License Fees
License Fee
Reserve
Used
Total License
Fee Reserve
Used
Total
Operators
Cap Used
Total Caps
Alljustment
201 Previous $1.18 $1.40 $2.58
Month
202 Month 1 65 66 1 $0.00 $1.18 $1.40 $2.58
203 Month 2 $1.18 $1.40 $2.58
204 Month 3 $1.18 $1.40 $2.58
205 Month 4 66 66 0 $0.06 $1.25 $1.40 $2.65
206 MonthS $1.25 $1.40 $2.65
207 Month 6 $1.25 $1.40 $2.65
208 Month 7 $1.25 $1.40 $2.65
209 Month 8 $1.25 $1.40 $2.65
210 Month 9 $1.25 $1.40 $2.65
211 Month 10 $1.25 $1.40 $2.65
212 Month 11 $1.25 $1.40 $2.65
213 Month 12 $1.25 $1.40 $2.65
214 Ave e Period 1 Ca Method Ad'usment $2.6305
5-~
FCC Fonn 1240
July 1996
Page 2
Microsoft Excel 5.0 Version
Question 1. Indicate the period for which this worksheet is being used. (Put an "X" in the appropriate box.)
I True-U~ Period
Question 2. Indicate the tier for which this worksheet is being used. (Put an "Xl! in the appropriate box.)
I Ba;iC I Tier 2 I Tied I
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, DC 20554
Approved By OMB 3060-0685
Worksheet 5 - Channel Movement and Deletion
True-Up Period, Basic Tier
For instruction<>, see Appendix A of Instructions For FCC Form 1240
Projected Period
Ticr4
TierS
Question 3. How long is the first period, in months. for which rates are being set with this worksheet?
Question 4. How long is the second period, in months. for which rates are being set with this worksheet?
12
1
2
3
4
Line
Residual uf Channels Deleted Residual of Channels Moved
From Tier (added) to Tier
Net Per-Channel Cost
Acljustmeut [Columu 2 -
COIUDlD 1]
Cumulative Net Per-
Channel Cost Acljustmeut
Period
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
$1.2096
$1.2096
$1.2096
$1.2096
$1.2096
$1.2096
$1.2096
$1.2096
$1.2096
$1.2096
$1.2096
$1.2096
$1.2096
$1.2096
Previous Period
Month 1
Month 2
Month 3
Month 4
MonthS
Month 6
Month 7
Month 8
Month 9
Month 10
Month 11
Month 12
Ave e Period 1 Channel Movement aod Deletion Ad'wOOeot
$0.0000
$0.0000
$0.0000
$0.0000
$0.0000
$0.0000
$0.0000
$0.0000
$0.0000
$0.0000
$0.0000
$0.0000
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 Mnnth 24
527 Average Period 2 Channel Movement aod Deletion Adjwtmeot
Page 1
5-10
Microsoft Excel 5.0 Version
FCC Form 1240
July 1996
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, DC 20554
Approved By OMB 3060-0685
Worksheet 5 - Channel Movement and Deletion
True-Up Period, Tier 2
For instructions, see Appendix A oflnstruct.ions For FCC Fonn 1240
Question 1. Indicate the period for which this worksheet is being used (Put an "X" in the appropriate box.)
I True-U~ Period
Question 2. Indicate the tier for which this worksheet is being used (Put an "X" in the appropriate box.)
I Sa,ie I TO; 2 I Tied I
Tier 4
Question 3. How long is the f1J"Sl period, in months. for which rates are being set with this worksheet?
Question 4. How long is the second period, in months. for which rates are being set with this worlcsheet?
Line
1
2
3
Period
Residual of Channels Deleted Residual of Channels Moved
From Tier (added) to Tier
Net Per-Channel Cost
Acljustmeot [Column 2 -
Column 1]
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
Previous Period
Month 1
Month 2
Month 3
Month 4
Month 5
Month 6
Month 7
Month 8
Month 9
Month 10
Month 11
Month 12
Ave e Period 1 Channel Movemeot and Deletion Ad'ustmeot
$0.0000
$0.0000
$0.0000
$0.0000
$0.0000
$0.0000
$0.0000
$0.0000
$0.0000
$0.0000
$0.0000
$0.0000
515 Month 13
516 Month 14
517 Month 15
518 Month 16
519 Month 17
520 Month 18
521 Month 19
522 Month 20
523 Month 21
524 Month 22
525 Month 23
526 Month 24
527 Ave e Period 2 Channel Movement and Deletion Ad.ustment
5-1\
Page 2
Microsoft Excel 5.0 Version
Projected Period
Tier 5
12
4
Cumulative Net Per-
Channel Cost Acljusbneot
($l.2409)
($1.2409)
($1.2409)
($l.2409)
($l.2409)
($l.2409)
($l.2409)
($l.2409)
($1.2409)
($1.2409)
($l.2409)
($l.2409)
($l.2409)
($l.2409)
FCC Form 1240
July 1996
Question 1. Indicate the period for which this worksheet is being used (Put an "X' in the appropriate box.)
I True-Up Period
Question 2. Indicate the tier for which this worksheet is being used. (Put an "Xl! in the appropriate box.)
I Ba~iC I Tier 2 I Tied I
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, DC 20554
Approved By OMB 3060-0685
Worksheet 5 - Channel Movement and Deletion
Projected Period, Basic Tier
For instructions. see Appendix A oflnstructions For FCC Fonn 1240
Projected Period
X
Tier 4
TierS
Question 3. How long is the first period, in months, for which rates are being set with this worksheet?
Question 4. How long is the second period, in months, for which rates are being set with this worksheet?
12
o
1
2
4
3
Line
Residual or Channels Deleted Residual or Channels Moved
From Tier (added) to Tier
Net Per-Channel Cost
Acljustmeot [Column 2 -
Columo 1]
Cumulative Net Per-Channel
Cost Acljustmeot
Period
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
S1.2096
SI.2096
SI.2096
$1.2096
S1.2096
SI.2096
S1.2096
SI.2096
SI.2096
SI.2096
S1.2096
S1.2096
S1.2096
S1.2096
Previous Period
SO.OOOO
SO.OOOO
$0.0000
$0.0000
SO.OOOO
SO.OOOO
SO.OOOO
SO.OOOO
SO.OOoo
SO'OOOO
SO'OOOO
SO.OOOO
Month 1
Month 2
Month 3
Month 4
Month 5
Month 6
Month 7
Month 8
Month 9
Month 10
Month 11
Month 12
Ave e Period 1 Channel Movement and Deletion A . ostmeot
5~/d-
Page 1
Microsoft Excel 5.0 Version
FCC Form 1240
lul)" 1996
Question 1. Indicate the period for which this worksheet is being used. (Put an "X" in the appropriate box.)
I True-Up Period
Question 2. Indicate the tier for which this worksheet is being used (Put an "X" in the appropriate box.)
I Ba,i, I Ti~ 2 I Tier3 I
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, DC 20554
Approved By OMB 3060-0685
Worksheet 5 - Channel Movement and Deletion
Projected Period, Tier 2
For instructions, see Appendix A of Instructions For FCC Fonn 1240
Projected Period
X
Tier 4
TierS
Question 3. How long is the fIrst period, in months, for which rates are being set with this worksheet?
Question 4. How long is the second period, in months, for which rates are being set with this worksheet?
12
o
1
2
3
4
Line
Residual uf Channels Deleted Residual of Channels Moved
From Tier (added) to Tier
Net Per-Channel Cost
Acljustmeol [Column 2 .
Column 1]
Cumulative Net Per-Channel
Cost Acijustmeot
Period
Previous Period
($1.2409)
($1.2409)
($1.2409)
($1.2409)
($1.2409)
($1.2409)
($1.2409)
($1.2409)
($1.2409)
($1.2409)
($1.2409)
($1.2409)
($1.2409)
($1.2409)
Month I
Month 2
Month 3
Month 4
Month 5
Month 6
Month 7
Month 8
Month 9
Month 10
Month II
Month 12
Aver e Period 1 Cbannel Movemeot and Deletion Ad.ustmeot
$0.0000
$0.0000
$0.0000
$0.0000
$0.0000
$0.0000
$0.0000
$0.0000
$0.0000
$0.0000
$0.0000
$0.0000
5-13
Page 2
FCC Form 1240
July 1996
Microsoft Excel 5.0 Version
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, DC 20554
Approved By OMB 3060-0685
Worksheet 7 - External Costs
True-Up Period
For instructions, see Appendix A ofInstructions For FCC Fonn 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?
Question 3. How long is the second period, in months. for which rates are being set with this worksheet?
12
Une
Line Descri tion
.
Basic
Tier 2
eno 1
TJerJ
Tier 4
e
TierS
External Costs Eligible for Markup
Cost of Programming For Channels Added Prior to
701 5/15/94 or .After 5/15/94 Using Markup Method $662,695.00 $3,827,519.00
For Period
702 Retransmission Consent Fees For Period
703 Copyright Fees For Period
704 External Costs Eligible For 7.5% Markup $662,695.00 $3,827,519.00
705 Marked Up EXlemal Costs $712,397.1250 $4,114,582.9250
External Costs Not Elil!ible for Markup
706 Cable Specific Taxes For Period $12,666.00 $23,129.00
707 Franchise Related Costs For Period
708 Commission Regulatory Fees For Period
709 Total External Costs For Period $725,063.1250 $4,137,711.9250
710 Monthly, Per.Subscriber External Costs For Period $0.9496 $5.6067
I
Period 2
External Costs Eligible for Markup
Cost of Programming For Channels Added Prior to
711 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 E).temal 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 E).1emal Costs For Period
2
5~14-
Page I
Microsoft Excel 5.0 Version
FCC Form 1240
July 1996
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, DC 20554
Approved By OMB 3060-0685
Worksheet 7 - External Costs
Projected Period
For instructions, see Appendix A ofInstructions 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 ftrst period. in months, for which rates are being set with this worksheet?
Question 3. How long is the second period, in months, for which Tates are being set with this worksheet?
12
o
Line
Line Descri tion
Basic
Tier 2
Peno 1
Tier 3
Tier 4
TierS
External Costs Eligible for Markup
Cost ofProgranuning For Channels Added Prior to
701 5/15194 or After 5/15194 Using Markup Method $1,199,277.00 $4,088,166.00
For Period
702 Relran<imission Consent Fees For Period
703 Copyright Fees FaT Period
704 External Costs Eligible For 7.5% Markup $1,199,277.00 54,088,166.00
705 Marked Up Extemai Costs 51,289,222.7750 54,394,778.4500
External Costs Not Eligible for Markup
706 Cable Specific Taxes For Period $12.882.00 $24.084.00
707 Franchise Related Costs FOT Period
708 Commission Regulatory Fees For Period
709 Total External Costs For Period 51,302,104.7750 54,418,862.4500
7]0 Monthly, Per-Subscriber E>.1ernal Costs For Period 51.6875 55.9351
1
5-15
Page 2
Microsoft Excel 5.0 Version
FCC Form 1240
July 1996
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, DC 20554
Approved By OMB 3060-Q6S5
Worksheet 8 - True-Up Rate Charged
For instructions, see Appendix A ofInstructions For FCC Fonn 1240
Question 1. How long is the True-Up Period I, in months?
Question 2. How long is the True-Up Period 2, in months?
12
. b c d .
Line Line Descriptiou Basic TierZ Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5
SOl Month 1 $7.3000 $17.1400
S02 Month 1 $7.3000 $17.1400
S03 Month 3 $7.3000 $17.1400
S04 Month 4 $7.3000 $17.1400
805 MonthS $7.3000 $17.1400
806 Month 6 $7.3000 $17.1400
807 Month 7 $7.3000 $17.1400
808 Month 8 $9.7400 $17.1800
809 Month 9 $9.7400 $17.1800
810 Month 10 $9.7400 $17.1800
811 Month 11 $9.7400 $17.1800
812 Month 12 $9.7400 $17.1800
813 Period 1 Average Rate $S.3167 $17.1567
814 Month 13
815 Month 14
816 Month IS
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
:.)
Ib
Page 1
Microsoft Excel 5.0 Version
FCC Form 1240
July 1996
COX COMMUNICATIONS
Franchise Authority Information:
Name of Local Franchising Authority CUID(s)
City of National City CA0419
Mailing Address of Local Franchising Authority
1243 National City Blvd.
City State I~IP Code
National Cilv Ca 91950
Telephone number Fax Number
(619) 691-5044 (619) 336-4376
Name of Local Franchising Authority CUID(s)
City of Chnla Vista CA0329
Mailing Address of Local Franchising Authority
276 Fourth Avenue
City Slate I ~IP Code
Chula Vista Ca 91910
Telephone number Fax Number
(619) 691-5044 (619) 691-5171
Name of Local Franchising Authority CUID(s)
City of Imperial Beach CA0421
Mailing Address of Local Franchising Authority
825 Imperial Beach
City State I ~IP Code
Imperial Beach Ca 91932
Telephone number Fax Number
(619) 423-8300 (619) 429-9770
Name of Local Franchising Authority CUlD(s)
Citv of Santee CA0337
Mailing Address of Local Franchising Authority
10601 Ma.nolia Avenue
City Slate I~IP Code
Santee Ca 92071
Telephone number Fax Number
(619) 2584100 (619) 562-0649
!J- 11
96 JuI
Aug
Sep
Oct
Noy
Dec
97 Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
97 Oct
Nay
Dec
98 Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Ju1
Aug
Sep
COX COMMUNICATIONS
PROGRAMMING EXPENSE BY MONTH
Cbula Vista, National City, Imperial Beacb, Santee,
BASIC CPS
Subs Rate Cost Subs Rate Cost
63,632 0.5310 33,789 61,499 5.0484 310,472
63,632 0.5310 33,789 61,499 5.0484 310,472
63,632 0.5310 33,789 61,499 5.0484 310,472
63,632 0.5057 32,179 61,499 5.0873 312,864
63,632 0.5057 32,179 61,499 5.0873 312,864
63,632 0.5057 32,179 61,499 5.0873 312,864
63,632 1.2174 77,466 61,499 5.3050 326,252
63,632 1.2174 77,466 61,499 5.3050 326,252
63,632 1.2174 77,466 61,499 5.3050 326,252
63,632 1.2174 77.466 61,499 5.3050 326,252
63,632 1.2174 77,466 61,499 5.3050 326,252
63,632 1.2174 77,466 61,499 5.3050 326,252
63,632 662,695 61,499 3,827,519
64,302 1.2174 78,281 62,044 5.1350 318,596
64,302 1.2174 78,281 62,044 5.1350 318,596
64,302 1.2174 78,281 62,044 5.1350 318,596
64,302 1.6665 107,159 62,044 5.6096 348,042
64,302 1.6665 107,159 62,044 5.6096 348,042
64,302 1.6665 107,159 62,044 5.6096 348,042
64,302 1.6665 107,159 62,044 5.6096 348,042
64,302 1.6665 107,159 62,044 5.6096 348,042
64,302 1.6665 107,159 62,044 5.6096 348,042
64,302 1.6665 107,159 62,044 5.6096 348,042
64,302 1.6665 107,159 62,044 5.6096 348,042
64,302 1.6665 107,159 62,044 5.6096 348,042
64,302 1,199,277 62,044 4,088,166
~-18
Chn
2
3
4
5
.
7
8
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
,.
20
21
22
23
24
26
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
36
38
37
38
38
40
41
42
43
44
45
..
47
48
4.
60
51
52
63
54
56
56
67
58
59
60
61
62
63
..
..
..
67
..
..
70
71
72
73
74
76
76
78
..
Start True-up
7/1/96
USA
ESPN
KCOX
KTlA
XETV
KNSD
KFMB
KUSI
KGTV
KPBS
XEWT
KCOP
KTTY
SNEAK
KBNT
COUNTY GOVT
C-SPAN 2
Family
XHAS
c.sPAN
WEATHER
ITV/MEU
Calif/Govt Acces
avc
WGN
1BS
Lifetime
NASAlPRIME
MTV
CNN
Headline News
AMC
TNT
Discovery
Learning
PREVIEW
Prime Deportiva
International
BET
A&E
a""",
CNBC
Bel-Fl
TNN
VH1
Nickelodeon
Comedy
E
Cartoon
Faith & Values
Disney
Showtime
HaO
Clnemax
Viewers Choice
Hot Choice
Showtime2
HB02
Clmemax2
Travel
Gems
Court
HSN
Value Vision
FX
MEU
Outdoor Life
Continuous Hits 3
'~;,
III I
Leassed Access
Continuous Hits 4
SEGA
Continuous Hits
COX COMMUNICATIONS
SOUTH CHANNEL LINE UP FOR FORM 1240
9130/96
12130/96
USA
ESPN
KCOX (Padres)
KSWB
XETV
KNSD
KFMB
KUSI
KGTV
KPBS
XEWT
KCCP
KTLA
News 15
KBNT
COUNTY GOVT
C.SPAN 2
Family
XHAS
C-SPAN
WEATHER
ITV! KnO'Nledge TV
Calif/Govt Acces
avc
WGN
1BS
Lifetime
NASAl FSW
MTV
CNN
Headline News
AMC
TNT
Discovery
Learning
PREVIEW
ESPN2
MS-NBC
BET
A&E
Bravo I Court
CNBC
SCI.FI
TNN
VH1
Nickelodeon
Comedy
E
Cartoon
SNEAK
Disney
Showtime
HBO
Clnemax
Cox Pay Per View
Cox PPV I Adult
Showtime2
HB02
Clmemax2
CMT
'i!iililii!'::ii:i""..
Travel
Gems
TV Land
HSN
Value Vision
FX
Knowledge TV
Outdoor Life
International
Fox Sports Americas
1:'!~~t9.ry..._._._.,.,...... . .
'lq,;"{?:i""'.. ..
Leassed Access
Odyssey I UCSD
SEGA
Cox Pay Per View
Channel Count
Sasj, 23 23 23
CPS 38 42 42
Other 16 12 12
Total 77 77 77
USA
ESPN
KCOX
KTTY~KSWB
XETV
KNSD
KFMB
KUSr
KGTV
KPBS
XEWT
KCOP
KTLA
News 15
KBNT
COUNTY GOVT
C-SPAN 2
Family
XHAS
C-SPAN
WEATHER
ITV/MEU
Calif/Govt Acces
avc
WGN
1BS
Lifetime
NASAlPRIME
MTV
CNN
Headline News
AMC
TNT
Discovery
Leaming
PREVIEW
ESPN2
MS-NBC
BET
A&E
a..",
CNBC
SCI-FI
TNN
VH1
Nickelodeon
Comedy
E
Cartoon
SNEAK
Disney
Showtime
HBO
Clnemax
Viewers Choice
Hot Choice
Showtlme2
HB02
Clmemax2
Traver
Gems
Court
HSN
Value Vision
FX
MEU
Outdoor Life
International
Prime Deportiva
~.i~tl)~......_._......... .
;lQif:"':::',.,.,",........
Leassed Access
Faith & Values
SEOA
Continuous Hits 3
Projected
1011197
USA
ESPN
KCOX (Padres)
KSWB
XETV
KNSO
KFMB
KUSI
KGTV
KPBS
XEWT
KCOP
KTlA
News 16
KBNT
COUNTY GOVT
C-SPAN 2
Family
XHAS
C-SPAN
WEATHER
IlV! Know\edge TV
Calif/Govt Acces
avc
WGN
1BS
Lifetime
NASAl FSW
MTV
CNN
Headline News
AMC
TNT
Discovery
Learning
PREVIEW
ESPN2
M$-N8C
BET
A&E
Bravo I Court
CNBC
SCI.FI
TNN
VH1
Nickelodeon
Comedy
E
Cartoon
SNEAK
Disney
Showtime
HaO
Clnemax
Cox Pay Per View
Cox PPV I Adult
Showtlme2
HB02
elmemax2
CMT
ll'&iiiii,:'",::,::i, ",....
T""""
Gems
TV Land
HSN
Value Vision
FX
Know\edge TV
Outdoor Life
International
__ ~GTV (home & garden)
:~~f..}t{:~;{::::::;:::::::::::.:;:,.:-,...:..,-.
Leassed Access
Odyssey I UCSD
~ ,Animal Planet
Cox Pay Per View
23
43
11
77
5-101
Fedc:n.lCormuni~OIl5Cortmiaion
W~D,c.20SS4
FORM 1105
DETERMlNlNC REGULATED EQUlPMENT AND INSTALLATION COSTS
~EQUIPMENT FORM"
ClIIDWIIityUnitI
",r(CUID)o cabl~systcrn
DIleo Furn
..00
CAOJ1:'
NIlIlCO leOpentor
07f1~7
Qo.CaaullIIlllaflaor...1nc..
Mli ... A Cable Opcmor
~l~' F..waI Bld_
C<y
Sm
NIlIlC Title 0 penon cOIq:dc\q\ urn:
WIIU.. J. J1tJ:IIauDon.. V.P. of ftnaAdal
Td<p/loonenumbcr
,.~
('IJ) 16&-SUO
('U)1"-SS40
N_,
.........,
oiClllllaVlIl.l
MliIllgA l.ocalFnndlIs-.;
276 Foou1hAven..
C""
OIl11aVhta
1.ThII'_llbeUlCfUed:rEa.....aq..I~lntheapproprt.tebo:J.l
Dlneonjunct.ill'1wrthFCC Furn ]200. FCC Furn ]220. or FCC Fmn 122S
Altac:hthe: ~lttedFCCFmn 1200, FCCFurn 1220. orFCCFurn 1225 1Olhc: ITort ofthisfurn
OR
0ln(O"dcrlOlulfillFCC"de$~irq:"'IIrnILlfilingoflhiSform
&ur the: elate lI'1 'Nhic:h yoo]ast filed this form 06fJ0/96 ltnwnldd'yy)
NOlI:: This should be !be date on Votic:h!be ralcs ]U1ju~~d. by IISing ~itha FCC Furn 393 or !be Jlior filing oflhis form. W(n in df~ct
2. Ellte1" the dlte on \lOhIdJ ,.....dosedyow books rorthelball~nfIto:kd In w. r,,",,:
Note;: This will indiClU!be eM of!be 12.f1lO11bfi$Ca\yevforwbic:h)'Oll ~filqthisfurn
~,. ~"'::"7' "m."',...~bIo.,..... rEo~" ",""..."""" "'J
Subchlpt<<StofPOl"lill'1
-
SoleProprictorlhip
OOlcrrp]l:II~apllinbelll'W]
5 - dO
Plgtl
ExceI4.0forWind<:Fws
"""''''
Approvcdby:OMB3060-0703
I(nmldd'yy)
FCCFmn120S
""""
Appn>vcd1ry:0MB306ll-CiOl
FedcnJComtu>ial.ioro<C"""":l$iM
W~or. D.C ~055-4
SCHEDuLE A: CAPITAL COSTS OF SER\'CE INSTALLATION ,1.,'"0 "Ult'.,El";ANCE OF EQUIPML"" AA"O Pu.....,
-- _L -~
A EoJipma1landPlart v_ Too" ,...... -, -,
, Qross Boot; Value SI~.8S~ ~~..56 S2.441.936,4S S2.91i)61.56 S480.D4.Sl SI.l>41.126.00
C AcaJmJla1ed Dctnciation S7.71-l,03--l.01 SI':lSl.314.16 S964..m.2J S108.160.49 S3!1..06S.00
0 Defc:m:dTaxes SI.ll5.i96 ~~
, SrLB<>ol:VaIu.{B.<C+D)] :S4.91:l."47..l1
R21eofRc:wm
0 ~oa,..,u- ,,,,,
01 Fed<nlIncomc:TuRale
0- SW.ln<omcTuR..Lc:
OJ !':el TOlJJ Ineomc Tax Rale {lGl-+G2l-l:01 J O:)J
'" Adi.-1 to Rdlecl rIIt:f<S1 DcQlo;OOil
"', AtWallnlo:rntAmo:ut S195,4llo5/ii.OO
"'. ToI1l NrL Asnu Sl.66i.377J63.00
"', BucRelumonlm~A/nOIItIl[G--IbJF]
"" Inl=slDeliJdibilit~Faelor[G4aJG4cl
0' ElfediveTuRale [G1J{1-G-1dl] IC sL:iploG7]
G< AdiuSllT><>fiforNoo-CCorpon-tioro<
"" BueRc:wmoninvulJn<ftAnlOllfl.IG--lc]
"" Diaribuli"""
"" Clll'lrKouti..... (...v ""'- <xc..1l G6b)
GOd Rd1JmI;Subi<cttolllcomcTu[G6a.Q6b+G6c]
"" ~P<rt~5ut>i<cttolJ>comcTax!G6dG6.a]
0' G<aa-L'plW.!C.c 1/(l-GS10lhc:r.1/(l-lmxG6clll
H 0.-. lW<flf~[fxG71
R<tumonlnv~Grvss.d-t.: forTucslExHl S9C.IO~.s~7'l. SI37).75.0I1 S169.491.96ll D6.~,.H6J S73.~.s,49Gl
C\IITaI.ProviJionfor co....on Sl.~11.9<45.13 S176.414,41 S361.J1S.SS SlS,&l1.6S S143.169.oo
, ""'''"IClpiL1l COSl5 [l+J] S-I.11-l,04i.7Si2 t.,l13,A:!U'61 W1.lO-I.SUI S7U19.1063 SlI6,614.4901
CRA.'"O TOTAl. I""'" of u... K ....Lrl<-1\ U."9.4~::7
Boa I.
Spt-cilYO<h<r1. N<I.........comull..-f"'"~l.~c:n
5p<cify,0tI>c:r1 F1tctcom
SClIF.DIJLE II: A.....NIML Of'DI.ATI....r; LWE.NS!:S FOJ.l. SEJ.l.\'lCE INSTAL1.ATION """1) MAINTENANCE or EQUlPMENT
Salanltl ~li<s I ,....QU...-l. I -'='.;;..,
.t.8alcfill Willies OIhcrT..... ( cifybdowl
" ........IOp.Ii.>:;":'..c,r""S"c.II1:.lall.II..JMliI(,ofEqJip S31.901l.16Ul Sl.ist.711.nl Sll1.06..\.9i SI.103.6.11.00 $.60599.517.851 S1.738.47I.71
, GlU..'"O TOTAL I...m of U... A ..ol.....l U!.5M,U4."
fIo.:.
Spccif)' Other I R.t).IC"lVCf\en..OulsideLabor.F.cilitie.lnannce
Spccjf)':0Il....2.lwlol........""'O~C....TIi""j......
5-~ \
P~~
E-o:<I4,or...windowl
FCCF_1l0S
Juno: 1996
FcdcnJ Comwnoatiora CorrmiI:5ion
Wuhirt\l:oo.D.C. 205~
~edby:OMB}06I).(l103
SCHEDL'LE C CAPIT At. COSTS OF" LEASED CUSTOMER EQUlPMENT
A Ewiprncrt
~,
~,
~, "'""""" c.._' "'""""" OIhcrEqJip.
Ill. 161611.35 11043.5 518.
4975 1345610. 241113. 5613.
$131.013.00 $149.919.901.00 $9,909.113.00 $1.<13-4.713.00
S13.I25.00 S9S,375.569.39 S6.6llI.324.46 SI70.416.00
S16.93IJ54.00
B TIll..l! MoitUnanctlSavice Hoo.n (AlladlE:q>lanaLiool
3&451.05
C ToPlllofUnilSinS6vicc
1754515.
o QrouBooO.:Va/uC
$11.002.671.00
,
A~,,",
~
Sj.II3,369.90
AJnJalCapiUJCo<u[I+JJ
-s5.2I1;O'73.IO
Ddmed Taxes
S53&.m.OO
G
NolBoolcValuc [D-(E+FlJ
H Gl"osscd--L'pRalccfR.ctumIF"""Sdlcd-A.l.inoHl
Raumon/nvc:slrflerlGn>sse6- fcrTuts fQ~H1
~Provisicnfcr~
S11.s.c1.1661
543.446995.6"'
$1,191.540.75
,
S~S6~111
"''''
S&1.5n<llll.9S1
L
GlU....nTOTAL[.....orLlAeKaotrlesl
su.9!:!.!U..6OI4
...,
SCHEDL'LE D: AVERAGE HOURS PER INSTALU.TION
A. AVEn2I'H",,",pcr\JnwiredHcmchotallation(alW:hltn''''lan''UOI11 1.05
B A'~ HOlII"SpcrPn.WirnlHcmontalIalicnClUJ,l;tIancxpl....u..n1 "
c. ...~ H<><Inpd" Adojiticnal C......:aion ...U.........at Time or.....i..llnsulloti... (auado ..... ""'............1 ,.,
D A'= H",,",I'C'" A<Idt1i....! Comecticn nU.llati...'" n."_~'.InsUlIaticn(onad1...C'CPI..ri...\ C.13
, Od>crlnoUllotion (bvlumTvn<\'
Il...,Mc,,,,onoullct
Av~HClII"1"""lnsUllalion(alUch......"I....u"") C.55
,. CcrtYat"fclac<JNrt.IDitktJtI
Avtl'Ut'HOlII"Spd"lnsl.o.ILWon(aruchona:zllanoti"'l I 0.15
n...,) l......cit\~l
Aun.<:< H......n: P'" InsUlloliM (allach on ~1"""l.Icnl I
<.
5-- d;;l
,'>",
l'~I-4.or...w.........
FCCF_120j
... ,,,.
Aw-ed by: OMB 3061>-(70)
FcdcnJCOImUlicau<Q~""
W~..... D.C. ~05~
WORKSHEET fORCALCULATLI\;G potMJTTED EQUlPME.....' A!\'D L...n-ALLATION OiARGES
STEP A. Hot.u"IySt:r<lcr 0.
I. ToW~italc-.orbboJlali""ondMairUrWlCCfSdlcOJI'A..Boxl]
ToW AJntal t... htallM>an pl Mai!I:...nce f~l. B. Bax 1]
3. TOlIJ italCOSUand r..........uw..nIlld~{I.ilcI+Wncl]
~ 1ndkalalJaK.I (aa.dIlll 1.
5. A.lnJaICUSlDITICf ~...~C""'- CoItsotLc:ued [LPe3x~"J
TotaILaborH.......t...Mair&........ond-'..........reu..-.a-
onds.....iees(........ ~"")
SS,'-4'.4S5.:531.J
$045.590.614.18
S51.2.4C1.010..fI1J
l.
S51J.40;010,4l17.
16i"860!..Sl
'UO:S2!5
""""
(HSC}(l.ines.1i1e61
METI-lOD Of BILLUOiC FORlNSTALLATIONS (plaa'.. "x" III tile ~ bin)
lnsWIalionr billil'd by the Iall" bued an doe HSC adwl*d in LR: ,.
:l lnIlallalionr billil'd ... . -.o.rd cNrp:.
STEP B..l.notalla&- ~
g, UnitcnnHSCf....:llnwla1ionl<fruuSUpA.liPe7)
OR
A~o.m=r...NlltJIMion
b. Pre......nd Home ntanation
bLHSC{I.ilc,j
bl. Avenge Ho<n pa- Pre-nd Home lPRaIlalion ts.cbecklk D.1.inc: Bl
b].o.rrop"'~Home~lblxblJ
UG.515J
0.7
13G..5155
"
x.UnwircdH......\nIU1\alion
d.HSC[lile7]
.~. A.....,.........p"'l.lnow'rodHome~(Sd>eduleD.Iiw:A)
aJ.~pa-~HomePulIalionI.lxL1]
.. ...~C~Pul""""IIITimxorNiaJnwlation
d.HSC[\iIeI}
.~. A~ HGn pa- AddotionLI comedion -..1la1ian at Time of PI.. Pul!. [Sd>e<bl. D. Lft C]
d. OWJ'"pa- AdJitional CtJmectianPullWonal Time llr r.itial kcallation [el x <1J
d.. Addational Comcctian btall.u.an
.lnIuUalioo
SJGJ1S5
'0.13
41.HSC[1.in<7J
dl. A~ Hoorl;pa'A~ ~Pul"""k.e.q.ScJI. nwl.ISdoeWl.D.LftDj
lO.o.,.p"'A4ditiaNJCameaiorIIIooWIalion~~s.p.rat.e~[c11 xdl]
.,OCher\nlU1~('" iedinSdoedileD.l.P::El:
el. HSCfl.,ine 7]
.1..........Hoonpa-InolaII.u.anor.....l [S<:be<l.olcD.Un<:E.Ilc...I)
cl~perIn<LoUal.ionorlanll.lx.~J
SJGJ1SS
",
.~ H$C{Linc 1\
d. ...~~ HllUI"Ipcrlrosll.llwonorllan11s.c:brtLlle D.1.inc E.llemll
.6. Charf:'< pa-lMtallwon oft.....: [NX <.Sj
1)o~:m
,,,
c7.HSC[l.inc11
eg.......... H..... pa-lnItallalfonofllan 1 l~lc D.Liuc E. lIem 3]
d. OWJ< per btallalion or tan 3 [e7 II" oS]
S1G.3!H
,.
'.
5-d3
F.xcd4.0r...Windootl
fCCF......1105
...,'"
h"",~
A(:vavedby: OMB 3060-0701
FedonJc.:.mu.i\Ollol.i~Conmissi<ln
Wuhir{!lan.D.c. 205>1
ISH.r ~~-=- for ::r::::' dnIflcdt/y dlnensl m.e) . b ,
R.,,,,,, , ......, ......,
>0. TOlI-l iId.i,t.".._ncc:S(niu Houn [ colurmfrom~I.C.UncB] .,,:'-:':':33<l52;9S .... m
.. HSC[tine7J I S30.525S Sn.S255 S30Sl5S
12. TOlI-l~'Sa'victc-ltArltlOXUnollJ J:L1U.1e6;206l "'00 SH1&.8506
n. ~taIec.u[ col.mfrom~lc C. Uno K] u.)6lJ.S4.lnl $0.00 $36,73.1.1632
.. Tol1lCosto(Ranot.t fIi>t11-<-tArlt13) S3.54l.m.nn 'SO.-OO ~Q,15O.-613&
" h\arrb<<o(UniuinSeMc-o [ coluImfromSdlco11ltC.LftCl I7S6U. .Q .97S~
" Unit Cost [Lint 14'Line 151 U;i)I92 SO.OO ...""
>7. JW.tpaMorth fli>tl&l(ll)] -so.ltiIJ ".00 ....",
STErD. o.~!::..-=.~ c-~~~ ltmrl . b ,
(Ca......to: ,roreadl dlna'alt 1 .,.,... I .,.,... , .,.,... J
.. Total~ctHcanI cobmhm~l< C.Linc BI '2061135 'T7(N3~ .......51.
.. HSC[tinc7] ...."" 'S3~~2S5 :UO~5
" TlIlI.l~'S<n'ic-oCoot(Lftl&xI91 -sa.010,o-~lS6I :SSJO)60;}41 StUI2.I841
" Atnlal CmiW C-' { cobm from Sdwdul. C. Lint 1<.:] ="'''"' Si,S70,1l4:6721 $41P.;JCU121
" Ttul Cost o(C""""--{Un< 20+ u... 11) Sro.sa.7W:nn S1.fl9O..nS.2111 :'$(nm..1051
" NunDerofUniU:in SeMc-oI coluImfrom~IeC,LintC] ..... "'..... """ :5613.
l~. Unit Cost [1iacl:lUnc-13] ..... 130:0939 SU31& S7US"
" JW.tpaMorCh [Lft14'(l1I] ",." L SO.7193 .""
STEP E.Ooa forOOoer Lnllf'd
26 Tol1lMainl..-.nct'ServiaHGo.n(C <o&.rn from SI::/lat.ll. c.\.ilc: B]
17. HSC[1..int7J
lS. TtUlMUtcnarll:t!ServietCost fl,B2'x\...iJK27}
19 .........~.....ICosts [ coluImhmSdwduleC.LintK)
10 TlIlI.ICOSlor~..., [1..intll.\.ilc:l'l']
11. ___orUniU:.,s.n.;c-o[C colurmfi'onISchc~I.C,LintCl
n tinitCOSl. [undOotftll]
II IWtpaMldh [Line31J(ll)]
,.
SlOSl5S
""
""
""
,.
"00
".00
METHOD Of BIl.USG fOR o-u..,;CINC SERVICE TIERS OR EQUIPMENT JpI"'" an ~J."..... "f'P""P'1ale bDl.l
... l'ominal OoarJe(Elllttlht---.Jcha/tt ",Line:).I)
... Unirorm Hourty Sel'\;u 0cJt
1 .....A"cngcOlaJ:e(Enlttd>tA~H....,ror~SeMe(Ti<nirlLincl6b.1
STU'F.Oo for ~l'ltn..
).I Somiral o.m: (or SavKo Tiers
If'i'OOJustancsal.u..sal(aldw-.:c:s.' ecan"x"inlhtboxatd>tridt
OR
l5 v..;formH.....-lvServiec~
OR
16 AHno:<Ooan:cfor
Servin Tim
I
I
I .,
SlO~15~::Ij:'.1-: ..
I ""
160.IGCIUnl:~]
l6b.A.......,...H~10C'har-.:<Sc.n,<(T,,:"
16<:A~a..-,:cr.,.-~5ttvinT'....IUncl6.axLincl6b]
<-
E)'dV
1'~5
Elrcel~.(lf...-Wftklws
fCCFcnnl205
... ""
FcOml COOWTUli(2lions: ColmIiIlSiOll
W~on. D.C, ~n5$4
WORKSHEET FORCALctn.ATtNC TOTAL E:QUlPMEl'o, A....1) INSTALU,TION COSTS
I. ToUJDpitaJCostsoflnstallMiOlland~~[Sdw:dJlcA.Boxl]
2. ToUJA/nW forDtalllOonandMaima1lnc~fSdoc<J,iIcB.Box2J
,. TouJAm.W CoslsotnwlationondMadcnancc(Linc I + LiIw. 2]
4. Qdt.llmcI" -.dInllalIatiunP (-.ch .....1.
~. AJnW~F";';';pm.:.:.MUaa.nccand\alUJIdill<lCosts.f.lg;ka~Coslsotl.-.l
[ljnc 1 x Unc 4]
6 ToW Costs ofl.-.l Oalomcr ISdlcWI~ c.Sox 1]
7 AJnWQIItoma'~";;;;;"'..d..ublioaColU S+Unc61
a p=--AUoc:a1iOllI.OF~An::I (tuncn.CliOlll)
9 AllocUcd Am.W ond hIaJWioQ Colt 7 x Unc '1
In. andDWlalionColifUnc9/mlJ
II )l,UrrbcrorBasic~inFtudUc
11 ManhlyF.....~ondnwIIlKlnCool..".Sut:s:rilcr[UncIO/Linclll
13 Wblion Faetor[.scchlnKli_l
14 AdJusUdMfdhtvEquiJ-ncn.ondnwllilionCostDCtS..bscriba[l..inc 11xUnc 131
~,.
5-,)5
,,,,,
1il=14,nfOfW-......s
N:Jprovcdby:OMB3060-07n)
S,S.649,.tSD311
.~S.s~"
SS,t,24G,D70.4IJl
....
U6.9SUI~toI4
-""""I%:liOI4
....
suo
....'"
"""'"
FCC Form I1ns
... ,m
FtdcnJec.mu.iClliOfllC.-ni!lSilXl
W""""an..O_C- 205.s-1
Af'p'vYcd by. OMB )1)6O.(l70l
~t .n..._t..... IAltalbl;\o>n RaIn lpcnnilkd A="
, -a.tftsfur CablcScnic. !n!:taIlati.....
LHourlyRat.[StcpA.Lim7J I....... ..............1
b. Avaut inIlIIlalilXl Chatft:s;
I. hUJlaliono{~H_ISla>B.Une9a3] ="
l./nIl&Ilationor~w........IStalB.Une9bl] SIt)7
). /nIl&IlMillll or Additional CcnoeaHnI-'- T.... or..... hWIaUon ~-a Une 'klJ SI.u6
4.lnItaIlabllllorAdcitior.IC:nleaiom k<<aItr<;r...aLinc9dll .mit
~. Otha"inIlIIl8lianI(IDICcitVl[SUIlal..ins~,ge6.9c9J
A $16."'19
. :$7.'&3
,. ".00
, t.l~n..... furl.Asc o{RamU CoIIn>Is [SIal c,t.ne 17,I;Obtn Hl
Ranot.CanIrolTypc:l: 1 .."
Jl.anotcCanIroI........2: ....... "'00
R.emolI:COIClII........]: ......... .."
, M fufl.AscofConvata-Bol= [Stq>D.t.ne 25. a>lurr-.-.I~l
CO<M:I'tOl'" Box Type I: ..... .. n~1
C...-tcfBoxl\'P"'- "'''
ClIf1Yerta"BoxTwc]: ""'
, r.lcnhlvo.n:cf..-LcucofOcbcrF--""ftnon.!StcpE..Linc11l
"""' ) I 10.001
, ~f..-a.r.r..-.Ti....(1f""'I[Slq)F.Lincl4,lS..-16cl 1 so.ool
SUMMARY SCHEDL'lL
UttOR COST """';0 POUCY OUNCES
IMiCl.l.}"."..-....lolhcfollllWint;lIn....cstionsbypW:irlgan"x-inlhc:~.box
8: ......,.._,~.....a""'_""""""''''''<.....,........ r~Dti.,...._,
n,>;;:-'''''''''''''''''_.......'''...'''''''''''''''''',....,
DI'O
l_lf}"OOl'-nfik:dthilformbcf(ll"t.,-""yvudlangcd..ypolicy.._"..toalcc~orroa.IIOCl1l.iOlltlllt""'K1-""inacucinlhc:costs
IlId..dcdinlhc.~oflO<p'ipncn.llldinluJt.liono<;:h.tp7
!lYESlYoulfl1<{llLIch.tul1apl....tiOll)
DNO
CERTlHCA T10N ST ATEMU'.T
\l,1lillJL FAU;ESTATEMEl'oTI MADE ON THIS FORM ARE PUNlSHA.BLE BY FTNE ANOIOR lMPRlSONM&,
(tH_ COOE TTT1.E II. SECTION lOOI~ AhLYORFORFEJTURECU.s. CODE..1ll1Jln.SE.CT10N SOl)
1 c-cnil'yUalIhc:lWancQJlI>Wo inthilformor<:lJUc-.lC"",,ClIOIhc:bal.or"'Ylr:Mwl<dr<lIIdbchd.Md.-.:..-.dc in~ iIh.
Nuncoflh<c.blc~or Sip.run
en.c-.........U""...lnc. ~.
Dol. TitI.
W\W..,J.~..".r,olno.lIId.1
5~ ), &
.....'
Exccl~.ororWindowI
FCCF_l~05
...""
-<
\,r.,
t,
\ .>
<:'~
S159 Feriera! Buui::<.i-ilil
San Dle~.jl', r;(jII;.:;'nliJ 92 lO~J ;l-1gC
16191153925'
October 9, 1997
coX
Mr. John Goss
City Manager
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista. CA 919] 0
COMMUNICATIONS
RE: Cox Communications' Filin2 of a Revised FCC Form 1205
Dear Mr. Goss:
Please find thc enclosed Revised FCC Form 1205 which establishes Maximum Pennittcd Rates which can
be charged for installation and equipmcnt As you know, Cox Communications is filing this form on a
company-wide basis. as permitted by FCC rules and rcgulations,
We had initially prepared our FCC Form 1205 report using estimates of anticipated costs. intending to
replace the estimates with actual costs prior to filing, Recently, it was determined that some of the
estimates had not been replaccd with actual costs, Consequently, we are submitting a Revised FCC Fonn
1205 for your review, A copy ofthis revised FCC Form 1205 has been forwarded to your consultant, Mr.
Jay Smith of Public Knowledge, Inc,
Since we are filing a Revised FCC Form 1205, we have chosen not to increase any equipment or
installation rates for the period beginning November 15,1997.
Should you have any qucstions or require additional infonnation, please don't hesitate to contact me or
Mary BalL Manager of Govemmcnt and Community Relations at (619) 266-5203,
Sincerely,
cc: Mary Ball
Enclosure: Revised FCC Form 1205
5-J,
FodcnI~~
W~D.C.1O'$04
FORM U05
DETERMlNtNCREGUU..TED EQUU"tdENT AND IN!TALL4.TlONcosn
~EQUD'MENT FORM'"
"'""""'"
"'" F~
.,....
.0 Car. Cl..-
-
........lK.1
...
au o-a...a1iDu, lae.
lofIOLabHevllDrtn:
"'"
"
.......
-
-
~
.....
......""""'"
T .....
Fu"""
"'-"'-""
........7.""
-
c..__
Mailq Adcha 0 ......,
"'" I- I~""'
l.TlII.r_bbdncftled; r~.."1~IBlKlIflIl"'Prl*boIJ
Dkl~widlFCCF_1200.PCCFonnlno,OIFCCFonnllli.
AA.o.dlIht ~ctc<lFCCFDnIl UOO.FCCF_lllO.OIFCCFonnllli l<>1ht fnn. ofthiJ fuIll.
OR
~klotdorl<>AilfiUFCCrula~"onUIltuqo!dUfonn
Erta-dled*on.mic:b".......ftlcdltafonn l(nmIcllYyy)
Nutc:Thif;.....1d1K1ho ~ "".tlOctr.lhcnla .....;.-ltkd.by~eid>a-FCCFonn3!n 01"'" !riot lU.. ollNs form....., indJtd..
1-_>
1.. [00........ ~_.......,... doloed~"",*"""'lK rbQI.,..rdIiedaIIB thb r_:
Nau: ThU:~U mau Ih<. aldol...., 12-mmd1fDaJ ~rOl~)'<aJ.... ruqlhiJ.fonn.
.",,'"
~' ;;-~"",:",......"'__.,......r-_"'.""''''''''","I
~seotpcntion
-
SolcJ'T1>prictcnhip
Od>a-[l'leaseccp....lKl_l
~-d7
....'
ExuI~_Of<J(W..........
AfIprowdby:OMB)06Q...(I7113
FCCforml20S
""'''''
ApJnNcd by OMB 3060-<1703
FcdcnI~~
w~D"C.2C;'iS4
scm:otlLEA.: CAPITAL cosn or SERVICE IN.UALLAnON AND MA.I!'I"TE.."\ANCE or EQUIP'MENT AND f'UJ'/T
A
..."'"
v'""""
--
T.... .-
_I.
"""'"
-.
"""'"
,
""'" ,...ov
SIU53.6~]
SI~O.l61J)6 Sl.Ir.U.U.OO
S526~1-52
SI.759,_311
c
A_
s.'!,I1J,0K3.!306
S667.017.17 SMI..5t5.oo
n4o.13-4..11
S769.063,0
0>
ElfcetivtTUIUu-(m..O-G4dl}1
QIO07
SU27.1n.l&404
SllI,9D..16
"si9o.n!..n11
s..c1.166.65
S3n706.6ol
o Ddemd Tua
E Net Bool: Valu~ (B-{C*D)]
lUuorR#lUm
G ~"Gnw- kw
Gl FcdcnI"""""Tu-1Uu-
G2 Sbkb;::omcTuIUu-
Q) NdTotalklcun<Tu:bIJ:[(Ol+02}{Ol..02))
'"
A
lORdlc:ctbaalDeOocliJil"
04. Ac:tuaIlrur<:IlAmou<ll:
O4b TatalNctAsll:U
G4e BucJtmmCWl~ ......-{04b..F}
O4d kUnslDocUdi>il' F.,;Ur [G4aIG4c]
'" A
r~No><:
06a Bu<-lldumon~AnIoI.dCHt)
06b [)islribo.oti....
G6c ~(_no(cr;g:cdG6bl
G6d Il.ctlRI IOft:IlmcTuIQ6a.06b-+06c)
G6c IUwmI P 10 b:unc Tu 106NG6a]
G7 r.- Rak[ 11(1-0.5) Ollw:r.II(I..(W"G6c))
H ~ RAUotlt.l:tan(F..07
RdlnCWl~Qroaed. r...TUIOJ{Bl<H]
CUn'tI1Pro..;.;onfOf
,
.-......JCapillIc....\I<J]
SJ,<4204~.'U51
,
GRAND TOTAL 1_ flI Uooe K ..trial
""'..,.,,
.....
SpeOl'y.OCN:l"I.NdWIrl;c.-Ilrt>ll...rOf~<torMrt<n
SpecifyQU...-l.F\ectCOm
sa-tmUU: B: ANNUAL OPDlAT1l'1C EXPENSES FORSERVlCE INSTALUTION AND MAlN'l"ENANCI: OF EOl1lJ'Ml:NT
""""'ia I I "'::::.1 I _'::';,~i_,
........ Uilitia """'T~ . bd_l
A .-......JOp.~fOf~nuI1.ondMart.or~ip. 129.116.176.00 S1.697._.00 s27I.1ol.ool SI,I96,Wil.oo[ S6.m.OII.~l S2J93.I96.00
B GRAND TOTAL 1- olUooeA...vw.1 UUl6,SIUl
....
Specil'y: Other I. MMConvertcn-.OuuidcUbor.F!KiJitica---=<
Specil'y:oo...-1AJII,QIeaKl.Aulo~C'<wrmini-
5/ ;Ie;
"<<<'
Iintl <4.0 rOfWindmrI
FCC Form 1105
....'"
Fedcnl Cm'r!u>ial.i_ CcxmUsion
W~D.C. 105~
Awovcd by; OMS 306G-ll7OJ
5On:DULE c: CAPITAL ~ OF LEASED CUSTOMDl. EQUIPMENT
A
......,
......,
......,
ComaU< ,
ComaU< ,
c~'
"""
,
T'"
.~~{A1tadI 1...u1Wl)
,,,,,
1,(1,460
16.710
C Tgta\lIorumnSame
2.216,69'1
2,331,339
126,.(IS
D OroaBook.VaIuc
SI~.692.135
SUl,0r7.as.t
SII,73I1,OOl.oo
.
""'""',...
.alion
15..(S7.9~
SlIW7,026
SVlW,nU6
......00_
f~Tucs (OxH]
o.:fmedT..u:s
G NctBooi::Value [D-(E+F)]
H Gruacd- ~orRmR[FromSdlecl.A.LineHl
o.rcn.P'r'oYi.Kmf~
.-
K A/nlllCapilaICoa[l+J]
L CRANDTOTALI_olUooeK..trbJ
"'""
SQlEDULE D: AVDlACE HOURS PERlNSTALU,TION
A A~Hoon__l..IrJootndHornenuJJati",,(acu.cban"""'.....tion) 1.0~'
, A__Hoo.nocrPre-WIRd~inotaIlation(llladI... emw.hon) 0.6317
c. A........., HoI,n __ Alkiti...J Comedial hDIla1.ion at Time orntial nullatioon (1lladI WI <:>nbnWool 0.$5S1
0 AVPnO'" HoI,n......A6cliti<<aI Comcctiookoolalla1.i"" )wlalWioo(attadllll....1anatian) 0.7~
. Olberinotallationftrv.....Twc:):
__ Mcm: .. oo.cJ<l
A......-HoI,n..... hD1t.tior1(attadllllembnWonl I '''''
.. ComaU<"'_i_
^~CfUC HDln l>U hRallwon (IlUm on eml...ulWl) 0.305<1
1l=3.{",.,ifv:j
A~CfUC Hoon .....1not&Ilwoo (olladl on <:mlanatioo)
5-.30
"'"
Ex,ol4.0r...w..........
FCCFonnllOS
...""
Appf..-Iby:OMB)060-{I703
FedcnlCormlrialionoCamlission
W~D.C.:105>4
wORKSHEET FORCALCULATJNC PERMITTED EQUIPMENT A.'ID lNSTALU.TJON Q-tARCES
mn ...-ao_
, ,.. CoIUotbtalL.uonmd~[Sd>edJleA..Boxl] "S04M1.194.2-7
, ,.."""" frrntalllilion md MUumncc fSdoc:OJ.le Ii. Boll:1} S41~~19.OC
I ,0000c.oitalCOlUapdOb<nlir. frrhlallatiooaro:l~[Unol+Line:1J. ~~.sU.2"'l
,. _.~~;;.:.....nnhlallllion (Illadi~jllll). L
I. ADualOIttmncrF4lilmcd~a1hla1laUanColU.~Cosba!LcuedlimDncrt[1.inc)JlB~] .....$4M.7.i:IS~
,. ,0lIJ 1.abor HaIn ftw ~ apd hlaIlUim orc::u.-EouPncR IlId Seniees (attach- ,..,J-uon) H984S9.
,. ..- (HSCJ(U>e5.lL.iPe6) SJl):~
METHOD OF BILLl1'<C FORlNSTALu.nONS (pIa<z _ R:l".. Doe ~bo:l)
DullaliOlW billed by Ibe IllIIKbucdllllIbeHSCc:aJgJlalcd ill Line 7.
1 nulbiion1 billed u alWlCiu'd d1qc.
STEP Po.. ~ Ooar-re
. tJpit'lIlm HSC for all inoWblicn (Ff1IIDSUp A.. lirle 7)
OR
9. A frrhlall:liion
e7. HSC{'Linoe 7
el. A-.Hounpcr......~r:I.....) {Sd-.<ld.aleD,Ln:E...... lJ
C'9. Ow!CpernuJlU:Jn orlan l (elx elJ
no"",
G.&n7
...1JDorin:d Home bWlIilion
aI.HSC{Line7)
al. A-.,eI-kJonpcrllllwndHomebtallMion(S<:hcOJ1eD,LineA)
a3. OIIIF per l.Inoofid Hgmc DbllaUan (alll alJ
b,Pre....ndHome~
bl. HSC {Line 7]
bl. A-.,e Noun per ~ Home nuJ\alion (S<:hcOJ1e D. Ln= B)
bl.~per~Homehlalllilion{bIJblJ
~ ,.o.dditiomJ CGmedioa bWlation at fine or nuaI btallal.ion
et.HSC{Line7]
c1.A-.,eHounperA~~hWIIililllllll'''''of w.. nulL [Sd>oGUcD,UneC]
cl. Ow!CperAdditianalea-c:ti<mhUllationatTnot hlW huJlalion{clxQ]
d. AdditiGnaI On>edian .....Iation hWIIilioa
dLHSC 7J
d1.A\'I-l-Iolnpa-AdditianaI~~1Lai- SqI.bUll. (SdleGllcD.LineD]
d3. ~per AdclilicnJ On>edian.....Wion~....Sq.nU hlallalionfdllld1J
..000000nuIlali<n(A>: . cd in Sd>edJk D.Ln= E):
.1. HSC [Lin< 7)
.1. ^"CR<<" Hoon per huJlalion ofl.cm I 1~I.D.LineE.l.cmlJ
03.~perhuJla1ionofl.cmlidxd]
o-l.HSC[1Jne7J
d. Avr:n.t;e HounperhWlMion of.....:1 {~leD. Ln: E......:1]
e6.~pcrbl.allWmoflan:1{o-l llUJ
no",'
6--31
FCCFlIlmll0~
"",,,m
EJ;;c.l <1.0 for Wm.:rw.
....'
~try:OMB3()6(l...{l7()]
F..xnl ConDuoiClltianl Comniuian
w~D.C. 20~504
ISTO'C. CJwJc:srorlc:uedRmltJlel dlIf(ftlll........) . . ,
ICalaal.it...........ld>'roreadl ......1 ......, ......,
1;, TouJ~ccHolnI ""lurmfNlmSc:toed.<I~C.1BBl 36tt7J13~1 ........ <..
" HSC[Une7] 'S!O:~ S30.4fi9 ."'-
I' TtUl~ceCost [Une 10 x LiP< 11] SI;I~ "'~ .....
Il ...., ""'" , cobmfNlmS<:hedulc:c,1iI<)..1 n.,..<f.Ilt1.U41 ROO .....
I'. -~TtUlCllll.ilC~ [LftU+UlcI3J ,*,J:1l~ SO;fliO .....
I'. }UrilcrorUnitt..~ , columIlhmSdlcl1lIeC,UxCj ;':;':~ ..
16. ""Cool [Ulcl.cII.RlS) .niCl :':sUO .-:>SO.OO,
I' ..."....... (LineU/fl2)] ;:SO.llCl4 ::Sl);90 -$4.00
STEr ~~~ ::~'::: ::=.....a::......dltrcnoot........) . . ,
""-""I ""-"", """'_.
18. ltUl~ceHo.n' ~henSdlc4llcc,Un<B] 'N-kS?.nM :111728_0'279 ....... ...
I' HSC[Lix;71 .:'UO:U99' ;:':;'::;::I30.41S'9 ."'''''
20. lot&l~a:QlIIl. [Ule Jlx 19] . S1,3Wl11::ms <::"t!D9.'1,t4231 :so.oo
,I. ...., ""'" c:obm hen Sdledalc C.liIc K] ~;1493004' SUJIJ.i1,<US ....
" Total CllIl.ofCarrtata" (Iilc2O+I.in< 21] S71.;669~m9 S2J"j:,00l~1 ....
". Nomt>croflbiu inScrvke I cobno hen Scbc<1>lc C. LiP< C] m3!l39; 126415. ...... ...
" ""Cool (Line WLinc 23] ULH41 S9.<fS61 "00
". bUpcrMMlI (LRW(2)] 'SU"l SCJllI .....
mn lorotMl"u-.d~
" TouJ~ctHoln[ o;Olurm&-om Sdlc4II~ C. Un< B] ..
" KSCrune7J .~
". TuuJ~Costrune26xLinc27] so-.oo
2'1. ...., """" coUm &un 5dleOJ.1~ C. Uno K) .....
'" Tot&lCOllofM.tilmat fLinc2l+Linc29] ....,
.1. NIm'ilerofUnitt..Suvicc[ eobm hm SCboWlc C. Lft C] ............
n. thtCostrune)l/I[.jno)l] ;'SC.t>>
" lUUpcrM<dh {Lint 321(12)] SO,OO
METHOD OF BILLING FOR QiANGING SERVICE TIER:'! OR EQUIPMENT (pI__ .. "J:~. Uoc.ppropiate bm]
1 uINorniraIOlqe(&u:rlbe__ct.p..Ulc304)
UIUnifotl'l'lHouriy~o-p:
.... AYCn<<" a.rp (Erur lbe A-. Han for ~ Sa"vicc Tion ill tine 36b.)
STE.PF.OI 1or00
).\.~ tor
If USC:lOleacal
0'
35 lA~formHourt Scrvic~
0'
...-n...
s.n;c:eTlcn
~~of ..-.,...inlN:boxotlhc
S1.00
'"
" A
r.
SaviaTion
S30.'4C9'1
36&.HSC[Lno7]
3Q,.A~Hulnto~s.n;c:e Tion
}&:. Awnr< OouJctor ~Scrv>ec Tion [Lnc}60. x tine 3Q,J
5 - 3:2-
"'"
Extcl~_ororW""""
FCC Form 1205
,...dm
fcd<nl Conm.anicWarw Cormliaion
W~D.C.1Cl5s.4
AWVYedby: OMB ~?Cl3
WORKSHEET FOR CALCl..IL4.TING TOTAL EQUIPMENT AND INSTALLATION COSTS
L T'" '" DfbUlbUon II'IlI ~ (SdooGm A. 8m: I] .:;=::$(4S1)9'..2'1
,. T'" ...., for bUll1tioa 1I'IlIMUta...:e (SclvOIle B. 8m: 1] ;=}:j4i:DQ;1I9'~OO
). ._TDlII ArnIIlcioUlCOlbDf~-S~{UPe 1 + Line 11 :":':';':':::::"'5;111.11$31
.. """"'" IIIdftlalWioa~(1lI:IdI IIMtilllll.
,. ...., """"'" ~lIldbUllabooCOlU. CoIlI:Df~El:W:mI:rt "::-':'-::':11);00'
[Line 3 x Line 4)
,. TalaI ClDital CollI ofLcued QuI.ama" (SdIeOiIeC,Bo:r:3) S~ts3~;mt
7. ...., """"'" Illd ........ Cou rI.ft 5 + Line 6] S;O~~
.. P<r'eaUB A1loc:1tian 10 fTwdUe Area (-~)
.. All--' ...., IlldbUlllUonCM[Line?llLineI] --;-:.:--so:w
... Illd bUI"'on CM [Line t' (12)] -:'-;"':SQ;jM).
II. NwrbcrofBuic~infnn:hiK
12 M v Fnuinrnort and NalIWan COIlpa-Sub.eribc:r [Line IOfLine 11] =IlDIVJIO!
n. inllar.ionA ._Fma-[Se<:ntrvcti....]
" ^ M ............d Nallar.ion CM sw-ri>a"fLine 12 x Line 13] '=<<n'Y1OI
5-)3
...."
EKeI ~.O fnr Wn:\oWI
FCC F,.,.,UOS
...,'"
FeOonl Camuoi~ Cuuniaim
W~D.C.105'"
eunaot"'- ...-,~ltoo..... IpenniDcd I.....
L n--r..CableScriic:ebW1ali.... E;[
LU.....tvRate~A..l:ine7]
~
'b~A---~~
L nt:.Ilati<mof~HamafStcpB.IJne9a31 :"''';:'::::\:::S:iiJ,
l.hU1lalionofPrcwftdHona(Sli:DB,LB9bl] '::":<:;:::{::;:::Siil':#'
3. hla1IIUoo of AdliticaI Coma:Ucn at TirDt ofDtial htalIalicn [..... B.l:ine~] .. :::Si&:;~
~.ht:Il1atiarlof~CamectioPI hlalI(SlalB,l:ine9d3]
,. Qlha"btalIIticu( [ B,Ln:l9c3.9c6.9d1
LW&lIF'"1Ih :'::$2Cl:94"
b.'""""'"' ::.:::-~:
,.
, MordII" n....... f<<1.aKofIl.al.uCauola (SttflC.l:ine 17, colulms.-eJ
JlanatI:CcdrolT'wwol: ":-iOX.
bmoteCcdrol----:;:::-1; '-'::-::'10;00
JlaDIlte CcnnIITvlo< 1: '-"-:::SO;iio'
, for Lcase afCallYenerIk=l [SttflD.LB15. cobml....:)
Corrvata"BcD:.........l:~ SHo
Corrva1a BcD: -1; Nm-Add-aable .--......-'::::'~;ii
CaM:l\a"Box-,: .....:-:'SO:iii6.
. f<<Lcase o(Odla"I'1lU""""" [SIalE,l:ine 13]
""" l so.ilo:l
, o.-.:<f<<"- Tia1:(1f I [StalF. l:ine 3-(. 35 or36c] I -liiIQ'l
SUMMARY satEDULE
LABOR COST AND POUCV QiANCE.S
h:licMcyew_...h:foll-'"lllnc..........byf>ladroB.."x"inh:~box
l.HoWyouindudcdlhew.ar_....a.tcd1lrilh~Qblecrop.in)'lU'~farPtWn.t&I1alim'
@:
1.Ho""youc.piufuz:dlhebbor_~wiIt1~able<hpl'l
[TIns
0"0
l.lfyout.v.:tlledllU fDl'll'lbdcn, haw you d-.r1p:I...,.policy.c-&-. g>St~arcost a1Loatioo\M1 auKS'" inc:rusc: in the eOtU
indudedinlhe~o("",,~MId.....J1.u....~
WYES.lUapl-'anbcloV'
0"0
"/"u.(suant 10 the FCCI R.cportand Orderrelesascd June 7,1996 "AggRrtion ofEquipmc:ntCom By Cable OperI.ton" the FCC tmmdcd iU rules toimplcmc::nt Section 301())
of the Tdecommunications Act of 1996, wtUc:h allows cable opcntors 10 ~Il; on. franchise, 5)'Stml, regional, ()( oompmt)' kvd. their equipment co&b into bro.d eategories.
Prior 1'205s wc:n:ClOOlpieted on..ystem bujs, nus 1ihr1g..... ge:nentedon. oompwtywide buis uw:I didproduoe:anincreuoe in the converter rental rate.
CERTlnCAT10N STATEMENT
WlUJ'Ul.FAUESTA~ MADE ON THIS FORM AAE PUNISHABLE BY FINE ANDiORIMPRlSONMEm'
(US. CODE mu: It. SEC'J1ON 1001), ANDIORFORFEnVRE(lJ.s. CODE. TTn.E ~7, s&:T10N SOl).
Ic:ortifytt.tlhe _~ iIIllla farm IR trvc ..dcorrecllolhcbeltofmyknowlodsc llIldbclict..d...,.,.de: inpodfaitll.
N_DfIhcObk~ spre
Cox Communications
Inc.
Oou
Title
09/30/97
Director of Rate Regulations
5-3i
,.,.,
Exctl~.Of<<Windlron
Apj:nIYedby:OMBl06(l-{l70J
FCCfDl'll'll105
...,,,.
PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE@
ATTACHMENT 6
3510 SUNI<IDGE DR S.
SALBl, OR 97302
(503) 581-0878
FAX (503) 581-2026
2828 ~.E. STANTON
PORTLAND, OR 97212
(':;03) 2117-727:)
FAX (503) 287-7323
October 10, 1997
Mr. Gerald Young
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Dear Gerald:
I have reviewed the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Form 1240 and Form
120S submitted to the City by Cox Communications (dated July 14, 1997). The Form
1240 sets maximum permitted prospective rates for regulated programming services for
the period of October 1, 1997 through September 30, 1998. The Form 120S sets
maximum permitted rates for equipment and installation rates. Cox has indicated that it
intends to adjust its rates beginning in February 1998.
On Au~tJS,.1~97 I, prepared ~. information request for Cox regarding both of these
filings.. Cox responped. ori~eptemJ;er 3, 1997 for the Form 1240 and on October 2, 1997
for'tIle ForIi1120S.' My review'iiiidings based on the filhigs,supplelTIented'bythe Cox
responses, are reported below.
Form 1240
I checked the following aspects of the Form 1240 (focusing on the basic service rate,
which local franchising authorities regulate directly):
. Compliance with FCC instructions
. Application of the correct inflation factors
. Consistency with maximum permitted rates determined in the previous Form 1240
filing
. Consistency of channel count and rate information on the FCC Form with supporting
information provided by Cox
. Reasonableness of the reported programming costs
. Accuracy of the calculations performed on the worksheets.
I found 'no issues that wquld cause adjustme~t of the maximum permitted basic rate
submitte~. by Cox ont~efoim )240. _. . ., ~. . . .
to
1
COSSUL'J7NG' ASLJ INFOIWAno." ShRI7GS FOR PI 'BUC AL4SAG'EMEAT E'\CELLE'VCE
Form 1205
I checked the following for the Cox Form 1205:
. Compliance with FCC rules and guidelines for reporting installation and equipment
costs
. Accuracy of the computations on the form
. Reasonableness of certain supporting information that Cox provided in response to my
request, and consistency of this information with that reported on the form
. General consistency with cost allocation and reporting methods applied in previous
Form 1205s.
-T~s-year for the first time Cox filed a consolidated Form HOffor its systems nationally;
this is permitted by the FCC. In the past the Form 1205 had been based on accounting
information specific to the system serving the subscribers in your community. Because the
national filing in effect averages costs across subscribers in all of the systems included, the
resulting rates can be quite different than they would have been if the filing remained
system-specific. The changes in maximum permitted rates for installations and equipment
for your community are explained in large part by this shift to a nationally consolidated
filing.
In response to my request, Cox provided work papers for 18 Cox systems plus recently
acquired systems included in the national filing. I spot-checked selected systems for
reasonableness. I gave added attention to the two systems I have reviewed in previous
years: Orange County and San Diego County. One of my key concerns was that the
procedures used for these two systems remained consistent with those applied in the past,
and I found this to be the case.
Although the Form 1205 that Cox submitted with its work papers differed slightly from
that it filed with the City, I did not identify any material issues that should cause the City
to order maximum permitted installation and equipment rates different from those filed by
Cox in its Form 1205 submission.
Recommendations
I recommend that the City accept the maximum permitted basic service rate as filed by
Cox on the Form 1240 dated July 14, 1997. I also recommend that the City accept the
Cox equipment and installation rates as filed in the July 14, 1997 Form 1205.
No City action is required under the FCC rules to implement these recommendations, but
you should of course comply with any State or local procedures applicable to cable
television rates.
ur ;L
2
If you have any questions please contact me at 503-287-7273.
Sincerely,
:t-<hJt. ~
Jay C. Smith
President, Public Knowledge, Inc.
&-3
3
AUj-27-1~ 14:46
n.J.t::l...lL.~
,
PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE~
ATTACHMENT 7
3510 SU!\'RlDGE DR S.
SAIEM. OR 97302
(503) 58 H1878
"AX (503) 581-2026
28~ N.R !;TAN'rON
PORTl.AND. O~ 97212
(503) 1$7-7r73
FAX (503) 287-7323
August 27, 1996
Mr. Gerald Young
CIty ofOfJla VISta
276 Fourth Av=
CImla Vua, CA 91910
Mr. Bob Hain
City of Imperial Beach
825 Imperial Beach Blvd.
Irnperial Beach, CA 91932
Ms. Lealk ~ and Mr. Park Monia
City of National City
1243 Ne:!iona1 City Blvd.
NatioDaI City, CA 91950
Dear Mr. young, Mr. Hain, Ms. Deese md Mr. Moms:
I have reviewed the Federal Cnmmllnications Commission (FCC) Form 1240. (dated June
24, 1996) and Form 1235 (corrected Forni. dated May I, 1996) submitted to the Cities of
CImla VlStA. Imperial Beach, and National City (franchising authorities) by Cox
CQm"",mlcatiOO8 (Cox). The purpose of the Form l240 is to set ~m11m pennitted ~
for basic ICf'Vice and cable prop....,..ing MrViccs (CPS) for a projected period (in this
ease, the period between October I, 1996 and september 30, 1997). The purpDllC: of the
Form 1235 is to adjust rateI for cable lIl\tWOrkupgrades - Cox seeIa to apply1be Form
1235 to add an "upgrade" i=.....em to the ~lITI permitted rates det.a~ on its
Form 1240. The Cox fiIingJ were identical for these three franchising mnhorities. The
fta1'f"j,j.;ng authorities directly reJUIate besic service rates; the FCC regn'otee CPS rates,
but UDder certain conditiOIlJ ftanchising authorities may trigger an FCC ~cw of'the CPS
rate by fi1ing Il prop<< complaint.
I nMewed the Cox Form 1240 for compliaDce with the FCC rules. c,-hvI the
<;&Ic:ulationll, and ,,,,-,eel the ~ of' certain key data. Under the FCC rules
Cox 11\II.Y adjust its IDJXimum pennitsed rateI to account for inflation, changea in exterDIl
c;ost.& (fur .xampI.e, program acquisition COItJ). and cIwmd additiOllJ or de1~. I
found no matcriaI problema in the Form 1240. Under the Form 1240 IYJtem, the
fill1dliq authorities will have an oppartuDity. ~ from nowto compare actUa1 QOItS
I
CONSUL7'It>lG AND lNl'ORMAT1Of" SliRVlCES FOR rUBlJC /MNllGI!MENT EXCEUF:NCF.
1- 1
.....
.. ~ ..'
~
to certain costs tlutt Cox projected in this fi1ing and to make adjustmeata ~rdingly in
the prospe.:tive lIIIlXimum pe<witted basic aervice ra1es for the ~uent period.
While 1 found the m~""'''I pelllbtt.ed basic aervice rate of$9.74 detcnnined on the Form
1240 acceptable, I diHgroe with the incn:mems that Cox _ks to add to this rate and to
the CPS rate hued on the Form 1235 filing for cable network upgndes. Cox reporU that
it upgraded its c:able system lIIIrVing these fPmt'hi,;"g authorities; previously the Iy1tem
had 450 MHz capacity, and now Cox reports 750 MHz, wdh 550 MHz 8Ctivaud. 'IhIs
there wu a reported increue of 100 MHz in activated capacity.
~
f
,
I do DOt believe that Cox properly allocated the coats of the upgrade in cIctermining rate
ad.justmc:nu fOr regu!lted ~c:es 011 the Form 1235. Jl"8','ned services iDclude the !laic
IerVice tier, which is directly RlgU!ated by the 1i-tfti'],;,,;n& authorities, and the cable
programming JmIices tier (CPS), which is regulated by the FCC. Reasons that the Cox
allocations were DOt proper include the fullowing:
· The FCC rules clearly provide that 1Ubscribe:'S should not pay for plant that is not uaed
and use:ful (see, for instance, Second Report and Order, Fa Order on
Reconsidcra1ion, and Further Notice of Proposed RuIc:makiIJg. FCC 95-S02, rdeased
January 26, 1996,136). In this cae, 66.67 pertoent of the upgrade (200 MHz of the
300 MHz upgrade) is not curremIy us:d and uacful. Yet Cox c:xduded only 20
percent of the upgrde cost as not uaed and useful. The Cox miona1e is that an
upgrade to only 550 MHz would aBegedly have cost about 80 percent as IllIld1 (Cox
estimate) as the actual upgrade to 750 MHz. Thus Cox hu IIpplied marginal coat
concepts to its allocation (the conteotion that the marginal COlt of the Jut 200 MHz of
~ty addition ia leas than the cost of the first 100 MHz af'the upgrade). However,
the FCC rules lpecific:ally require afiJly distribu/uJ cost aBoeation methodology (see
Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulcmaking, FCC 94-39, nrIeuod
March 30, 1994,11 226 fL). Under this approach, each unit ohdeled capacity should
be treated lllI if it com the IllUDe as the other units of lidded capacity; ooe-third of the
cost should be allocated to the first 100 MHz (which ill uaed and useful), and two-
thirds of the cost to the Wt 200 MHz (which ia not ulled and useful). UnIesI: the fu1Iy
distnbuted ~on approach ia IIpplied, ~ rates paid by subsc:ribenl to 1""'S',Iried
JeIVices included in the 100 MHz aetivltcd portion of the upgrade will include a
disproportionately lafge share of cost compared to those: who ultimately U8C services
(likely to primarily be unrogulated) provided in the remaining 200 MHz once it is
activated; that is, there wiD be croJIlUbsidies.
. Once it had excluded 20 pen;ent of the upgrade cost fur the 200 MHz not CUlTattly
activa1ed, Cox a1located the remainina cost based on the total channel count by service
tier (buic, CPS, and all other) after the upgrade. Cox rcportlI74 activated "M"nels
IJ:ftr.r me upgrade. mN"ding 18 buic, 41 CPS, and IS "other." So, for example, about
24.3 pc= (18 divided by 74) of tile m1idual upgrade cost that Cox l1lpOrted as \lied
and useful was allocated to the basic tier. Yet Cox did not add InY basic r'Nnnrfs in
the upgrade - there were 18 basic cbauneIa both Wore and after. Upgrlde coati may
'j_ 2
dicatel.u'" - .' 0\ r.....- . "/
6. In '\0\15 flhng . ri.sd.ictlon. nt n\1o,& ~
1. StatuS of fre'Y 1 '140 fl\ed i.n anY )~, \'lith the FCC'? date of the roost reee
CC Form - eV\ous') tel" the
\"""$ the nrst f 40 been ft\ed ~r l{yes, en
a.1s t\l' _r" 'C......-m \1 , ,
yES
r=====:J
;1
/
I
!
I
~
2ll~ N.E. STAN"rON
pZ7-1996 14: 56
Pt.IILI C I<J-G,LEDGE
l~r(~ P.B4
be passed through to subocn1>en only if1he opend:or dernon8lI"&tes thai the capiW
invcstmCD1 actuaI1y benefitllUbsc;riben to regulated aervices (Report md Order and
Further Notice ofP~uyOSCC1 Rul_lMflg. FCC 94-39, released March 30, 1994,1
287). In this case, there is no ckmonJUBted berIt4it to basic service sublCribers Iince
the channel aIlocanoo for the basic tier was not changed by the up~ Tbcl'e:f'ore.
DODe of the upgrade COlt IIbou1d be allocated to basic. Further. the allocation between
CPS aDd other setVices should be buod 00 the cIwmel additiODll directly asaociatecl
with the upgrade, DOt thole on the l)'IleID owrall (Cox already reccMI'I through its
beoclunari< rates foe the c:hanne!IlIVlIi1able before the upgrade).
. Cox did not indiCl!e III! ~C(;ted m'CDIlC for the adivated c:apacity involved in the
upgrade. Tbe form iDJtnlc:lioo5 ca11 for the operator to report prc.j..a.:.d advertiIiDg.
cornmiJSion, aDd leased w;ea rewmes. among others. Cox's channel ~up
iDdicates that two of the lidded cIwmeIs are home shopping, and one iaIcued acee<~;
othen \Uldoubtcdly carry advertising iDIlertions for which Cox will be oompcnsated. If
reported, projected revmme would be an ofl1et to upgrade costa 5II0wn on the Form
1235. The Cox projection OrDO added revmue is limply implausible based on the
indicated channel additions.
. On previous FCC Form 12105 Cox Iw reported channel additions on the ers tier and
inc;reued its rnaxirnnn permitted rateS for the ers tier under the FCC's "c:aps"
method for treating added ~. COl< bad used its fun $ 1.20 "cap" (plus
programming costs) for the added channels before filing this Form 1235. All but one
of the channels that Cox added under the "caps" method wm made available by the
additional 100 MHz that C~ actiwted in the uppade frol1l450 MHz to 550 MHz
(oDe channel was added befoN the upgrade). By now claiming the upgrade c:ost that
in part reW.es to the as capacity usociated with the "tap" me additions Cox would
be reoo~ twice for the added CPS ~, OIlCC in the "cap" addition and again
in the upgrade cost anoc:ated to the CPS tier. This result could not ~ reuonabIy
been the FCC', intent, and should be clarified by an FCC review of this c.oncc:m.
As a consequence of these C()IICCI'DIl, I rec:ommend the following actions fur the
franchising authorities.
. Approve a $9.74I1'n.;mnm permitted rate for basic service (excluding franchise fees).
but deny Cox any additioo to tbia tniximwn ~lI,jtted basic service rate based 00 the
Form 1235.
. Submit a Form 329 complaint to the FCC regarding the CPS tier. Tbis c:ornplalnt must
come a frmcb;smg mthority. but ~ that at lout twO ~bsaibers have
complained to the frlnchiSng IIJthority within certain time fi-amea after the operu!or
has ebanied as rateS (_ daChmeDt); Cox reported. CPS rate iuaease in May.
1996. The FCC Ihould then resolve the proper a1Ioallioo of upgrade costa to the CPS
tier.
7- 3
..
.----- ',-
FU:i-27-1996 14: sa
m.m_~_-J
F'UB.-IC ~
,.~
.~ll~
Please ~ lJle at 503-287-7273 if you have any qu~ons.
SiDl=eIy,
bkt c. ~
JlIY C. Sl!lith
President, Public Knowkdge, In;,
7- 4
TOrR.. p, eI5
"
<:J "
<:J
co ,.,
~
" "
~ ~
W"
~3
o::l "
-,,"
~ "0
" co
o ~
WOO
= e 0
~ -- u
~ " .
<:J-- e
- ~<:J "-
J:t ~.Q 1
ca ~~
~:< =
Co) &~ .
d
.en.
G)
~
ca
1-
G)
-
.=
ca
u
...
<- en
'"
'"
~ 1-
<- G)
~
0; E
'"
Cl
0
,.. .s
(.)
0
,; en
<:
Q
- =
0;
.. U
'"
~ ~
:0
Cl en
0: C>
'7
~ E
0
Z
:0
0 ~
"
'"
-
Q
Z --
<: .c
Ul
'"
:I: C>
,..
~
S
(.)
~:5'-=- '",. ,,fj ~.':':~ c&;ot:.dJ .6G-t?-~-g ;;'iJ 11.l:.~.i ~i~'E5> .2 ~:E
E'-~ - 3, Om~ =~~~~ ~_~~U~ o~ u~~c -u~.. m' u~
~o c:: .... ..;:::0..... uuu",..<:: --cc:':::: :E > itu ~c.........<::"'" u :::w
::l._';:; U .... :.cwe .~u~u..... ] IO:u.....;::::; .0 l:,;,u;" .=c.o'E..... t:I/j IV
"'Eu E = -c .-'" 'C~!c -CeO: ~~ '-u';u u.....o~.... c.~
aE~ c 0 ra~E~"Oo.~a:;", ",~@<'l-B ~~ c'Ztlj;2 ~t,;:~Eo ~ o.J::J
Uo~ 8~~ ~-;;::u~~~E~.s .~~Uf.:lU:~ .~- ~g..E~ .~:gu...:; "a~..n~
Il.Iw". -::;._ c,;:...."o -",-uu;..- ",UluUl;lC'-' 1-0. C;o:<l.Iu'" -......=0.;
.s~~ ~~t ~E"'~~o~t:I/j"" ....~~]~2.~.....5 E~.J::J", u"'5C.5 .~c~....
u~ ....:-;:.... ...c::~::l~I;>/)-u:::~ &.8&,:rac:: C;ur;; 0:90'" ""_llIlNU .....o=::g
~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ r~'~~~ ~.~~ ~ ~;~ ~~~~~ ~5.i~ ~-E]:~;~ i~'~ ~
C.....::l ;::l U <:;:l ...0. .....;::"'11) .." ..::c.........l:;; Q) _.~=-oo:lCo...)(";;j .:::=0.....
u '" c 0 <;i u ",'- '" ::l= u lio "'. c UO - "'C "0 -0 C .. 'E-::::"'- a. '" 0:..... ._ u..o '"
E...c::.- ........ "0. __oe, U.O: -1Il ._"OC <ll <ll0ll '-8- o.~CI.J
~.~.-=: :a'o"E ~ ~g ~ ~'rn~ ~:~ fr ~fr~:'O.s ~':~ ~~.g ~~"': ~ ~f.su~ ~~ ~~{j~
..., >. .. ~.- '" >.~ 0 .. c;J .. .. ~ 0.....- c ~ M E <ll.- ~ U ~
~tt ~..c~]~.S~~-"E=g-ob'-;:1:.5Jr~",~~;;- ~4J~Ol]~Ci",ug ..2~.~~
.::: ~ ~ ..; .. -: -:: Ii:. g ~ g=.~ .8 i:E .... ~.::: ~ ~ ui.~ ~ t -C:] 0. ~ C ~ ::..2"O.~ ~ -g::r:: ;:::...... ~ ;t
c.~<n.-'<:tlO'-~~'-i;-~.'t::<n"OcS...---"'~-<n 0......'" <n<n"",<IJ"'<IJ-C<C__ ~.....c..r::.-.
CI.J ou2.S....-5...~ 0..8..2 VI B';;;: ~~ ><: o..~ ~ ~ :Ft:l(J><: ;~:~ <n.e <IJ~ ~~ <IJ 0 ><: 0 Ol.... ~
~:x:~j~f.~~~ :~lS ~ ~~~g,Bb8;]O ci~'~8 ~ 3~~~~ ~ ~~.3.~ 8~.Q ~ ~
.!!l a~ ;t..... ~--;;;.=....~~.VI~ ~.~-E~ ci">.ui'~'~ e-.5 VI ] e og].--5.~ ~ 0.. ci~ CI.J <llll)
c~....e~~~g~VI~~~<ll~Q~""o~~c.;ll)ec.- ....!~~"'~"Qo..]ll) oe~<n-.s
.9'~ g'~ ~ ~ 0. c ~ &'l ~~ ~.:5 >.;; ='0:';:.9 <.0 5: 'tl.a: ~ e {; '5 ~ <ll c.g ~ ~ ~ (/)~ -5:';: ~ ~ c; ~
.~ o..'2~ <'Il c-;;;-B ~ g ",.9 i;"8 ~(,{) g.~::g-o ~_~::> ~....:c . 0..8 ~-5';;..c-c-=~o: g:go Z ~':;;
eg.a....ll)~b~~._~~>S...St:l(JB<'IlJ"O~(,{)~..~~-5~....!cu~~OOc~e ~..o<n
E'2';;~?= 0 g'.;:lU-o~or:~ E.E.S'S :a.5.;:;-t'i:;"O~~Z ",gu ~ E i)~: t.5;;;.... ....5.n~r- ~
8~b<ll ~~s ;;;~~ i~ui~ K.5<~~~ .~e EBE~ ~ ~;! ;~sj
;. t~:(:H
~ ,.,
, .
, r
i-5
~.
-:~;,iJ!~
ili ~t-~!
\D E~ . i i
SW, E:;:
~ ;-ggi!~ S
M Q~~ ~
.... oO-:':'.f Q
~~~ g
.s.g.;ri
.E~~~
&-5 ~ ~
c.i~~
-5:;a~~
gl~i
=Et~
~.~~j
~5S1!
~l!!lii'
~i~i
UU~{!!
#i.-.
or~-.
~
c
.
S
s
.
11
~. ...
~
a t
& ~r
:;- A€
.. .~
.E8.zli
~U1!
_ ~a. I
; ~.~ a
:is ~i
III ~E,
U Om
en E~
C"v
-a.c
-..!J' 109
a:: 8E
00
~"l
<.fi.~
r
;;'
~!
o
5 ...~ <0
'ii ~.!::: ~.J::. E
'g 0 e ;;8 1:1 ~ 4> 3
~6;~~~>-~~~~~ u
!! Q,;;;'c C::.:1 0 "'CJi~ e '" '" .;;
z:: Euu8.c;E~C::Ac::.!S!4>t;; ~
c. ~w~~~.!lc..~~~SU)5 :~
gg;: ~ E'Ji] ~ .2 g ~~.5~ ci2.s
U;!:E >:::liiiE ::;..;:lcu:3.!!l...oc-o
-0 'll)~ e. :3~....~~=~'-
~j~~~~lBb~'~bJl~~~~
.....;:;.~ ",-0 ~ l'l cu::l~"" "'.5 1:IOJ,;;;::i
g~~~~~~~gE~~~I"Q~&~
~:"O"<'Il""o~u~o~tlOc;;;~~~
.!S!",::;r;~.::~ ~guE~oc::-;;c~..c
"'..~E ~..2.s~: ~EJ:!u~.s-e~o.3o <'IlE.
-0 c .... -cu -0 "'..... ~
..o....~~o-.s~c::-.s-o.9c~~~8e
~~~l'l~~~--~a~g:o.~]~~
e~ .g~o>.<'Il"E~'~~~<'Il::l~G
_ c E.;:; ~.....a .;.E....-5.!!l e <'Il-5::;! ~u
r:'~ 8 ~..c.i ~ ~ ~ ~ -0 E ~ [i ~ -0 0 ~
'l.l ~ ~ E t-'.;:::..r::. .... c:: ~ ~ E - u .... >';::E
] ~~ S' '~1:dS'~ ~8G.~~.s .s
'"
<.)
~
~
w
~
'"
..
"
Z
co
'~.:. ..!.~E .E..!.;.-i-g.!!lll .L~.!!~
~.-;: ~ ~.8.g~ ~ '" ]."E ",-5~ ~.. ~e.~
..s. .-'<:","O~o~<>~C~'l.l:::!"'cc
0. ~ 5>-ob~= .!3u'-~~Eg.-o
2~~ ii~~B.~~]~~l~"'u!~
~~~ ~]~~~~W~]~]~;~.~!
~~~ rio~Sog~E~.5~~u~i~
~~~ .~~~~g~cu~~~~~~E~~
E~.Q ~-c;I~_~:~",~c~~~8:~
cu t:l(J ~~~~o ~CUll)U~"'C:::::lC::
:-o~ cu-53.;>.i~"S8goJ~
~~E ~~-c;l3""]~",~,,,~,~._u<ll~
c:: ~ . o=c::lt:rl)-c;lo._~ ~cu-c;l'"
'" ___..c"';' ~ Z <'Il cu.8 ;:;I ll) g 8..!! 11 ~ ~ ll) ~ '"
~~g~UvID~~]~ME;;;gE~~8~
UU<nU ~~r- ...._r-_(,{)...~ Ct:l(J~
.$i~
'" :E
8]
~<:l
....,~
.~ ~
~~
~~
..'~~~ -0"0 ,;;..C::
>."::J '" _ ~ ~ ,;,.~ ~~
"05.!!g; U'i.B'ii~.!!~
~Eeg ~~~]e~
:.c "'~..~ U.2!-e'E_ E
cu 5....~3 .1l:1:!cu;:jOS
:E '.;:l 'l.l 0. ~= c:a ...'il....
e e.;;8..~:ae-Be.E~;:;
~ 'E"~>'E~c:oB8-tI)
o ::l_O~CUt:l(J(O:.::.~:eo
>- S:-;:E~~~",'ilc.c""
-.~ g~3::~~~~~]11
;:; u.-;:.;:tir- 0..2_ ~.r, E
e ~ >..E a...;;; g ;:: ~ :;;.:::,
~ =-8~.~.~~~~~i~~.~
~ .... ~> n: '" U ....;>
~-I
~
c
5
~
."
.
.
-
..
~
o
..
~
le
--
."
-"
w:::
~<
"'.
ATTACHMENT 8
~~f?-
~
~~~-
ellY OF
CHUlA VISTA
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
TELEFAX COVER LETTER
Telecopier No. (619) 585-5612
DATE:
J!H!t7
I /
TO:
star News Leqal / Chrissy
FAX NO: (619) 426-6346
FROM: Carla J. Griffin
SUBJECT:
c?~~. iJ~~
TOTAL NO. PAGES (including cover) :
Jj
PUBLICATION DATE:
11/-29/9 ?
I I
If all pages are not received, please call Carla @ (619) 691-5041.
J;
276 FOURTH AVENUE. CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 91910 . (619) 691.5041
~ """'"""-,..
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
BY THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL will hold
.)Jfe public hearings to consider the following:
.. A proposed agreement to grant a modified cable system franchise to CoxCom
Inc., a Delaware corporation, dba Cox Communications San Diego
Ordinance amending the franchise agreement with Cox Communications, adopting
a franchise fee of 5%, extending the franchise an additional ten years through the
year 2020, and making various other changes in terms and conditions. (First reading)
Ordinance amending Section 5.52.010 of the Municipal Code to conform the fees
assessable to cable franchisees and other video programming providers to those l' \
allowed by state and federal law and maklIlg other tech meal changes. (;:'4 ~v-;)
The Ordinance modifying the franchise will only be considered on December 9, 1997,
subject to the adoption of City Council Resolution 18818 on November 25, 1997:
SETTING DECEMBER 9,1997 AS THE DATE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
FOR CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED AGREEMENT TO GRANT
A MODIFIED FRANCHISE AGREEMENT TO COX
COMMUNICATIONS (COXCOM) INC., DBA COX COMMUNICATIONS
SAN DIEGO
WHEREAS, on April 16, 1964, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 882
granting a franchise to Area Television Antenna, Inc. to operate a community
antenna television system in the City of Chula Vista; and
WHEREAS, said franchise was subsequently taken over by Cox Cable and
substantially amended in 1984 and is currently scheduled to expire in January,
2009; and
WHEREAS, staff has been renegottatlIlg certain franchise terms because
there have been several changes in the cable industry and the San Diego
market in the last 13 years; and
WHEREAS, the major terms being renegotiated include: Franchise Fee;
Term; Smart Community; Peg Grant, Cable Modems, Extension of Service,
System and Services Review, Extension of Customer Services, Traffic Signal
Access to Cable Facilities; Video Playback; Customer Selvice Standards and
Obscenity.
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 1201 of the City Charter, the City
Council shall pass a resolution declaring its intention to grant a franchise and
fix the day, hour and place when and where any persons having any interest
therein or any objection to the granting thereof may appear before the City
Council and be heard thereon.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of
Chula Vista does hereby set December 9, 1997 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers as the date, time and place for the public hearing for consideration
of a proposed agreement to grant a modified franchise agreement to Cox
Communications (CoxCom) Inc. subject to substantially the following
modified terms and conditions:
Increasing the franchise fee from 3''%, to 5%, extending the term by 10 years,
providing the city with the hardware and software necessary to implement an
additional phase of the Smart Community program, providing ten cable
modems for city facilities (e.g. libraries, recreation centers), providing a PEG
(Public, Educational, Governmental) grant of $100,000, specifying the
distances, development densities or timing within which it is expected that
service will be provided at no significant cost, requiring a system and services
review in the year 2006, specifying the circumstances under which additional
services available elsewhere in the County would be made available to Chula
Vista subscribers, providing for good faith negotiation of future technology
linkages or other issues of mutual interest, providing the city with playback
equipment for the broadcast of City Council meetings, specifying minimum
customer service standards and liquidated damages if they are not met,
providing for subscriber notification of options to block audio/visual
transmissions of unwanted programming, amending text regarding
renegotiation intervals, amending termination provisions and disposition of'
the franchise property in such case, amending text regarding rate regulation
authority, providing that there shall be no offset or credit on the franchise fee,
setting the limitations of the grant of franchise and right reserve to city,
specifying the location of franchise properties and the standards for their
construction or maintenance or relocation, amending insurance and liability
provisions, amending text regarding inspection of property and records,
providing for resolution of issues in conflict or held to be invalid, making
representations and warranties as to the franchise, agreeing to provisions of
force majeure and time being of the essence, and clarifying existing definitions
and administrative provisions.
.. Existing and proposed rates and charges for Cox Communications' Basic Service
Tier and associated equipment and Cable Programming Selvices Tier, as submitted
by Cox Communications to the City via Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
Forms 1235, 1240 and 1205.
Resolution (1) Approving various proposed cost-based decreases for installations
and associated equipment; (2) Approving proposed cost-based increases in the
Maximum Permitted Rates for the Basic Selvice Tier ($2.86); il;$l'ff (3) Approving
proposed cost-based increases in the Maximum Permitted Rates for the Cable
Programming Services Tier ($0.46); and (4) Approving proposed upgrade-related
increases in the Maximum Permitted Rates for the Basic Service Tier ($1.57).
These items regard maximum rates only. The effective date of any actual rate
increases within said maximums would be subject to discretionalY action by Cox and
thirty days notice to subscribers. Items 1-3 are per Forms 1205 and 1240 and have
been found to be appropriately justified adjustments based on programming costs
within the guidelines set by the FCC. Item 4 is based on an FCC decision rejecting
Chula Vista's complaint regarding upgrade-related increases in CPS rates and
decreasing Cox's requested upgrade-related Basic rate increase request from $1.59
to $1.57 to reflect adjustments to the accounting of income tax allowances.
For further information or questions, please contact Gerald Young, Principal
Management Assistant, at 585-5649.
.. Considering retaining the Calendar Year 1998 Business License Tax rates at the
current Calendar Year 1997 levels. For further information or questions, please
contact Chelyl Fruchter, Assistant Director of Finance, at 691-5051.
Any petitions to be submitted to the City Council must be received by the City Clerk's office
no later than noon of the hearing date.
If you wish to challenge the City's action on these matters in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this
notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk's Office at or prior to the
public hearing.
SAID PUBLIC HEARINGS WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY COUNCIL on Tuesday,
December 9, 1997, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Services Building, 276
Fourth Avenue, at which time any person desiring to be heard may appear.
DATED: November 25, 1997
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item c2.0
Meeting Date 12/09/97
ITEM TITLE
Public Hearing: Consideration of the proposed grant of a modified cable
system franchise to Cox Communications (CoxCom) Inc.
Ordinance Amending the franchise agreement with Cox
Communications, adopting a maximum franchise fee of 5%, extending the
franchise an additional ten years through the year 2020, and making
various other changes in terms and conditions. (First reading)
Ordinance Amending the Municipal Code to conform the fees
assessable to cable franchisees and other video programming providers to
those allowed by state and federal law. (First reading)
SUBMITTED BY: Principal Management Assis~fl :oung~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager JG CO~VI (4/5ths Vote: Yes_ No_XJ
One of the economic development sub-goals outlined by Council in the past year's priority setting
workshops was the review of all city franchise agreements. This report presents a proposed
amendment to the City's franchise with Cox Communications. Among the terms of this proposal,
the City would be able to implement an additional phase of the Smart Community program as
developed in a series of 1996 public workshops. Other recommendations include an increase in
the franchise fee to a maximum of the industry standard level of 5% of gross revenues and a ten
year extension to the term of the franchise.
RECOMMENDATION: At the request of the applicant, staff recommends that Council continue
the public hearing until the meeting of December 16, 1997.
:20 ~ /
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item )--1
Meeting Date 12/9/97
ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing on Assessment District Number 93-01 for Alley
Improvements East of Second Avenue and South of"J" Street
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works
City Manager ~
(4/5ths Vote: Yes _ NoX)
REVIEWED BY:
Staffrecommends the public hearing be continued to the meeting of 1/6/98.
h: \home\engineer\agenda\93 -0 1. fp
;2)--/
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TiTlE:
19'9'J/tJ
RESOLUTION Amending the FY 1997-98 Budget to include 1.00 Full-
time Equivalent (FTE) Police Agent Position and Vehicle; Accepting and
Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenues in the Amount of $155,804
from High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDT A) Grant Funds.
Item :2. :4.
Meeting Date 12/09/97
REVIEWED BY:
Chief of Polic~ ~
"'S~~\,~
City Manager -J 4 ~ -7
(4/5ths Vote: YeslL No
SUBMITTED BY:
The Chula Vista Police Department has two agents working with the United States Custom Service
(USCS), one agent at Operation Alliance, the other agent at the Air/Marine Narcotics Interdiction
Group. Both positions are funded through High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDT A) grants.
The Chula Vista Police Department is now seeking to expand and enhance its investigative efforts
by participating in another HIDT A position lead by the FBI investigating "narcotic traffickers".
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve one agent position for the "Narcotic Traffickers' Joint Initiative". Accept the $155,804
in HIDT A grant funds and amend the FY 1997-98 budget to include 1.00 FTE police agent
including salary and benefits and associated overtime, vehicle and cellular phone as well as
maintenance costs associated with the equipment. Coordinate the allocation of up to $50,000
of overtime to other state and local agencies participating in the initiative
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
This innovative and groundbreaking joint initiative titled "Narcotic Traffickers" was established by
the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) in fiscal
year 1996 to target the predominant multi-drug trafficking "core organizations" operating in
Southern California. Although this initiative has been in existence for just over two years, it has
proven to be highly effective. It is staffed by members from several federal and state agencies
including the DEA, FBI, United States Customs Services (USCS), Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement
(BNE) and others.
The funding through High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Grants is aimed at developing multi-
jurisdictional, cooperative strategies to: a) gather intelligence on drug traffickers; b) investigate
drug trafficking activities; c) arrest persons involved with illegal drug trafficking; and, d) to
successfully prosecute those arrested. San Diego and Imperial Counties have been designated as
High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas, due to the volume of illegal narcotics entering the United
States through the international border frontier.
c2,;2- )
Page 2, Item _
Meeting Date 12/09/97
The HIDTA grant will pay for the cost of one full-time police agent position and benefits at
$70,680, overtime in the amount of $11,063, the purchase of a vehicle, cellular phone, portable
radio, other miscellaneous equipment and associated maintenance costs in the amount of
$24,061. The Chula Vista Police Department will also coordinate the state and local agencies
participation in the initiative including the authorization of up to $50,000 of overtime. Continued
funding of this position and related expenses will be subject to federal budget deliberations.
For the past several years the Chula Vista Police Department (CVPD) has enjoyed an exceptionally
productive working relationship with all the aforementioned federal and state agencies. These
agencies have been the department's counterparts in a variety of investigations, including money
laundering, homicides, kidnapping and major drug cases. One goal of the Police Department is to
help disrupt the illegal drug activities occurring along the southwest United States/Mexican border
within the County of San Diego, giving primary attention to the cases involving the City of Chula
Vista. Our participation has significantly increased arrests, narcotics and money seizures among
large scale drug traffickers, including several who lived in Chula Vista.
For example, an investigation involving the Chula Vista Police Department Narcotics Enforcement
Team (NET). was aimed at dismantling an organization responsible for smuggling multi-ton
quantities of marijuana into the United States. CVPD narcotics detectives played a lead role in this
investigation that lasted nearly eight months and culminated with the indictments of twenty-five
individuals. A majority of those indicted were one time Chula Vista residents.
Another investigation led by a Chula Vista Police detective working within a HIDT A funded position
led to the arrest and conviction of a major marijuana trafficker who lived in Chula Vista. In
addition to the hundreds of pounds of marijuana seized from this violator, the CVPD HIDT A
representative was able to seize approximately $200,000 in cash from illegal drug proceeds.
These are just two examples of several similar successful investigations. Other benefits of our
participation have included enhanced communication, cooperation, and intelligence networking
with other local, state, and federal agencies.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Funding from HIDT A will offset the costs associated with having one additional Police agent.
HIDTA will specifically reimburse the agent's salary, benefits, overtime, vehicle and cell phone
purchase and associated maintenance costs for a total of $155,804. As a result, there is no fiscal
impact to the General Fund. Continued participation in the program and funding of the position
will be subject to federal budget deliberations. As such this position will be added as a temporary
position subject to continued funding from HIDT A or other sources.
Attachment: HIDT A Grant Budget
cJ :J - .:L.
RESOLUTION NO.
;f{5JYtJ
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE FY 1997-98 BUDGET TO
INCLUDE 1.00 FTE POLICE AGENT POSITION AND
VEHICLE; ACCEPTING AND APPROPRIATING
UNANTICIPATED GRANT REVENUES IN THE AMOUNT OF
$155,804 FROM HIGH INTENSITY DRUG TRAFFICKING
AREA (HIDTA) GRANT FUNDS
WHEREAS, the Chula vista Police Department has two Agents
working with the united states Custom service (USCS), one Agent at
Operation Alliance, the other Agent at the Air/Marine Narcotics
Interdiction Group; and
WHEREAS, both positions are funded through High Intensity
Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) grants; and
WHEREAS, the Chula vista Police Department is now seeking
to expand and enhance its investigative efforts by participating in
another HIDTA position lead by the FBI investigating "Narcotic
Traffickers".
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
city of Chula vista does hereby amend the FY 1997-98 budget to
include 1.00 FTE Police Agent position and vehicle; accept and
appropriate unanticipated grant revenues in the amount of $155,804
from High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) Grant Funds.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Richard P. Emerson, Chief of
Police
~~~
John M. Kaheny, City Attorney
C:\rs\hidta.grt
<--2,2/3
HIDTA GRANT BUDGET
I Proposed Use I Account Number I Amount I
Salary 100-1093-5101 $52,200
Retirement 100-1093-5141 12,315
Employee Benefit 100-1093-5142 5,126
Medicare, 1.45% 100-1093-5143 746
Overtime 100-1093-5103 11,063
Vehicle 100-1093-5565 15,000
Maintenance/Fuel 100-1093-5269 2,160
Phone, radio, etc. 100-1093-5568 6,901
Overtime from other agencies 100-1094-5103 50,000
TOTAL $155,511
;<02-7
/
December 4, 1997
FROM:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
John D. Goss, City Mana~~
City council Meeting of-December 9, 1997
TO:
SUBJECT:
This will transmit the agenda and related materials for the regular
city Council meeting of Tuesday, December 9, 1997. Comments
regarding the Written Communications are as follows:
5a. This is a letter from the city Attorney stating that to the
best of his knowledge from observance of actions taken in
Closed Session on 11/25/97 and 12/2/97 in which the City
Attorney participated, there were no actions taken which are
required under the Brown Act to be reported.
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THIS LETTER BE RECEIVED AND FILED.
JDG:mab
THE CITY OF
IMPERIAL
BEACH
FAX (619) 429-9770
825 IMPERIAL BEACH BOULEVARD. IMPERIAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA 91932
November 26, 1997
Shirley Horton
Mayor
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Dear Mayor Horton:
Per the request of Mayor Pro Tern Donn Hall, enclosed please find information pertaining to the
San Diego National Wildlife Refuge. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact
me at 423-8301.
Sincerely,
CI Y OF IMPERIAL BEACH
Linda A. Troyan, CMC
City Clerk
enclosure
cc: Donn Hall,Mayor Pro Tern
LAT/esb
dr-a- - )
Otay-Sweetwater Unit. Vernal Pools Stewardship Project.
and Proposed South San Diego Bay Unit.
San Diego National Wildlife Refuge
..
vERNAL POOLS
S'1'i:WARDSHII> I>ROJ(CT
~
,
III
S(I'I'I V."C~M.
o
12 KW
R"'N~
, .,
.
/
,,--,
I..ak. j~'''''1q.
'"'"
',~)
...
0, ;V-3"\
~ '-,
.~~
SA~ DIEGO
~
N^ TIO....^l
Pacific
fOREST
Ocean -
PlO'~POS(D SOUH04
s..'" :)lEGO en
...;r-;IT
""I)(ICO
BLJll'S OUY N..TION....1.
LAND AND W1LDllrr
......N...atwENT ARC...
.-----
.l Yo.- ~ d--
;
South San Diego Bay Planning Area.
San Diego National Wildlife Refuge
\\
\CIIy Boundary I.ln..- \, \"
\, \
\ \'
" \
\ \'
, ,\
\ \'
,'. \
1\'
i\ .\
\\~gl\
~\i~\ !
\ \ \
South San
\ \ \
'Z.
~
W
\.,)
o
Cl
L:;:
-
\..)
~
\
\
,
\ 1.'_5. ~0'0'01
Radio Stction
@
\ \ \
Palm "".
;; !Ii ,
. Imperial Beach ~ I
'"
, ,
~ Caronoljo Av. I
I
,
o
02;J~ - 3
(----.
I /
. ,
'7"" \
I '1', '\
, 'l, '"
~ ~'\ \
~.,
AREA
ENI.ARGEG
~
o
2000
4.000 'eet
,
t---
South Son DieQo Boy
PlonninQ Area
~S-
~"""ILDUF':E
SERVICE
~,..."
, ..
, '
....... ~<~.
.-...;;:,. ~_.'
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
Proposed South San Diego Bay Unit
San Diego National Wildlife Refuge
September 1997
Why does the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service want to establish a refuge in South
San Diego Bay?
In ille midst of one of the nation's largest urban areas, Souill San Diego Bay se:-ves as a vital link
in the Pacific Flyway for many species of migratory birds. South San Diego Bay is an irnponant
v"irnering area for waterfowL such as surf scoter, scaup, brant, and bufflehead. and for
shorebirds, such as northe:u phalarope and red knot. It is also an imponant breeding ground for
seabirds, including black skimmer and several species of terns. South Bay provides habitat for
se';e:-al species protected under the Federal Endange:-ed Species Act, including the Califomia
least tern and western snowy plover.
As San Diego Bay has become more urbanized, ille remaining South Bay habi;alS have become
inGeasingly imponant for \vildlue. Much of the area's best remaining mudfla:s. salt marshes,
and eelgrass beds are found in the South Bay. The salt ponds and surrounding silallow waters are
im.ponant habitats for seabirds and shorebirds. For example, a 1994 study recorded more than
ha.i.f a million birds using the salt ponds alone in a single year.
Establishing the South San Diego Bay Unit of the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge would
provide the Fish and Wildlife Service with ille opportuniry to conserve and manage South Bay's
variery of habitats and \'iildlife species for the benefit of present and future generations, in
cooperation with the U.S. :-iavy, State of California, local jurisdictions, and non-governmental
orgarnzanons.
What effect does designation of a national wildlife refuge boundary have on the
land within and nearby?
No new or additional zoning or land-use regulations would be created by the Se;-vice vv1thin the
approved Refuge acquisition boundary for the proposed Souill San Diego Bay Dnit. Land-use
designations and zoning would remain the responsibiliry of local jurisdictions. Development of
private land would continue to be subject to the land-use regulations of the local jurisdictions.
The identification of an approved Refuge boundary would not affect the ability of private
landowners and local jurisdictions to implement adopted land-use plans, or to continue existing
projects. The local jurisdictions would be under no requirement to amend their land-use plans to
co:uorm with the approved Refuge boundary.
;<Ya-Y
~ /~J/77
. F_ --.
The Fish and Wildlife Se;-;ice works on a willing participant basis. Landowners would be under
no obligation to sell their land. or interests therein, to the Service. The approved Refuge
bourldary would give the Se;-;ice the authority to acquire propenies from willing sellers. or to
esublish cooperative ag,eements with other agencies. As lands are acquired by-the Service,
Refuge lands would be managed pursuant to the National Wildlife Refuge Syscem
Administration Act. This .-\ct provides the guidelines and directives to administer and manage
nc.tional \vildlife refuges. This Act does not provide the Service with any authority to regulate
activities beyond the bouI:dary of the Refuge. However, the Service and other Federal agencies
(such as the U.S. .tumy Corps of Engineers), through a variery of other existing laws and
regulations (such as the Clean \Vater Act and Endangered Species Act), may continue to review
and comment on proposei development projects that may impact endangered and threatened
species and wetlands in San Diego Bay.
How would the Service manage lands under the National Wildlife Refuge System?
On national wildlife :efuges, management activities generally include monitoring the status and
reco';e:y of endangered, Greatened, and candidate species: controlling nonnative species;
restoring and enhancing :::atiye habitats; protecting migratory birds and their habitats; and
proYiding \vildlife-depe::cent recreational opporrunities.
Specific activities for widife management and public use would be carefully designed for the
proposed South San Diego Bay enit during the comprehensive management planning process.
Biological data, public input, and budget and staffIng constraints would be conside:ed in the
development of the comprehensive management plan.
This plan would also access "va issues raised in the Refuge proposal: I) public view points, and
2) effects on boaters from protecting migratory waterio\vl and seabirds from disturbance in fall
and winter, Management DroDosals to deal with both issues would be analvzed in the
.... ~... -
comprehensive management plan. The Service is introducing both issues for public discussion
now in anticipation of the refuge management planning process.
What boundary alternatives is the Service considering?
The Service is considering four boundary alternatives:
Alternative A. Alternative A would include approximately 4,994 acres of public and private
land within the proposed South San Diego Bay Unit boundary (see Map).
Alternative B. (Preferred Alternative) Alternative B would be very similar to A, but would
exclude three areas on the perimeter of the South Bay: Silver Strand State Beach. Pond 20, and
Area 2. Alternative B would include approximately 4,772 acres of public and private land within
the proposed South San Diego Bay Unit (see Map). Alternative B would coyer about 96 percent
of Alternative A.
d- i/~ ~ 5
Alternative C. Alternative C is the preferred altern:llive from the 1978 environmental
assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact. This boundary encompasses the salt ponds,
including Pond 20, Area 2, and part of the lvfKEG parcel. The only parts of Emory Cove that are
included are those south of Emory Channel. Navy land is not included. .Ajtemative C would
include 2,203 acres of public and private land within the proposed South San Diego Bay Unit
(see Map). The area proposed for protection is approximately 44 percent of Aiternative A.
Alternative D. (No Action) Under the no action alternative, the Service would not acquire,
manage or protect any land under the National Wildlife Refuge System in the Somh San Diego
Bay. Existing levels of protection would be expected to continue under the no action alternative.
What is the status of the proposal, and how does the proposal process work?
The Service is preparing to make a formal refuge proposal to the public in the fall. This will be
done as part of compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Service
expects to release a draft land protection plan (LPP) and environmental assessment (EA) in
October for a 30-day public review. During the review period, the Service ""ill host one or more
open houses to give the public an opportunity to discuss the project with Sef\ice representatives
and to submit written co=ents. At the end of the comment period, all co=ents received will
be compiled, read, and considered in the development of the final LPP and EA. On the basis of
the [mal EA.. the Re!!ional Director for Re!!ion I, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Smice, will decide
- -
whether to the Service should establish the proposed South San Diego Bay Unit, and if so, which
alternative best fulfills the purposes for this Refuge. The public will be advised of our decision.
cJy~~~
Table 1. Acres of habitat within the proposed South San Diego Bay Unit.
~: L _.' _,,~ ~_ " ,."'.,~:.....->.;..:-,_.;;.- 1_.:.,':':.;.,","-,:;:,:.:.... .'~~- ".' - - ..;>
~ Stndy "~AI{erriatJv'e~, Alternitive--€. rAIteriiati~ri oAlternative.?
-Area ~~ ';:d,~~~~'.,~~ ::1~;;;~'"~~~ i"tf~~.~~ ~i;l.~~cc~:;:.~
~... .. ',"_;~'~::-:'C,~' -..... _~:.:-_ =-..~...-_ . _ ,--,',.-- ~~-:::-:'/E . "''''..,.........'':. -.
Submerged land 1,721 1,721 1,721 380 0
Eelgrass 691 691 691 50 0
Mud flat/intertidal 492 492 492 ml 0
Salt marsh" . 57 57 57 54\ 0
" . "
:
Salt Pond "" . 1,175 1,175 1,068 1,175 0
Beaches,:d"unes, . . 696 696 589 89 0
and cTe:lted land: ~
Riparian: " 8 8 I 8 0
J
Fallow 154 154 146 7' 0
_J
AgriculturalIand
Total 4,994 4,994 4,772 2,203 I 0
. Does not include acre:1ge along dikes in salt ponds.
;2tjOc-7
BOUNDARY ALTERNAT ES, PROPOSED SOUTH SAt liEGO BAY UNIT
SAN DIEGO NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Alternative A
,..'
\
N
"'J
~
'i'\
(i
o
(""l
rn
J>
Z
4.994 Acres:
Alternative C
.)
-
~
\ " ~)
, ~
~
N
\
~
'i'\
(i
o
(""l
rn
J>
Z
\l
'l
~
',..(. .,..
\'..... ""
~ ,
=E,?~~L
-,
II
\
\
Si\L7?O:'>"DS
2,203 Acres
Alternative B - Preferred Alternative
l
\
;
t
~
N
"'J
~
'i'\
(i
o
(""l
rn
~
~
4.722 Acres
1 Silver Strand State Beach
2 Area Two
3 MKEG / Fenton Parcel
4 Pond 20
o
2
3
-........... - --
Miles
u.s.
FISH &. WILDLIFE
SERVICE
,~T o~,
'/K~-'S,"Jy<"',,
1/'" .- __" ~
i/oCl," /,'
I'''';,~'
:/0, "~'
(!~' :C'
'.,l...:;\. 0:
"~I ' =tr,:
,"
i
~:\~~
. .,~' ii
.- ';'.-';:$
,.'j
" :..,-,.,.
:::~
,.-::::?~'~:J~"'"
~.; '~''::':: :..~.,.
.~.....~
-.
." ~..
':~"!~
I
'"
~ -
'" -
0-
~ ~
ro
~,
" -
0-
- -
-
-
~
- ~
J
~
3 '"
2.
~
< 2. 3
-
-"' ~ cD
~ ~ ~ ~
"i? ~ fi Z
5 ~ ~
" ~ ....
~ ~ ~ '"
~ I , ~
];
~ ;;:
~ ~
Z Q ~ "
- ~
n "'
7
i Q
- =
::2. <
~
"5 ~ <,
3";;
::) ~
:.n :-2.3.
< ::
,") + -= 'lJ
8 ;0:5
- ?-
= :3:S- ;j
:z -::; ,~;c 0-
?~3n~
'" - '../) 2. -
3" ~ ~
- -
'"
- - ~
i - ~ '"
:2 " ?
= -
- .' ~
- '"
- ?
'"
-
-
= -
-'
< "- - 2:
~ ~
- '"
- - '~
- <
-~
~
!Po
~ :;;
~
5 "-
yo
~ ~
~ g
-
:,:;
;:
~
....
'(\1
o!::.
~
5'
'~'5
:; 'JJ
=.,<
:: :J)
:: 2"
>
"
~ ,.
~ 0 ;;-
'" ~
" c:
5 '" ....
~ - 0 '"
n '" , '
m 1-:' '"
~ z '"
'" Z 'I,,"",
~ ..
~ z ;l-
"
'i'
6<n
::l =;; ~
-to :J
=- S g.;
::J~ 53":J
Q-::r<
;= o' :':) :l.l
,.,5 :J rl :=
Q ~ ~ ~
~[g~
~:TC1>
3'ro~
J & K HQlllngswortn
mro
5"2
8B-
0';
'-' "'
(') m 9:
rn :) ro
Vl;;2
- < =
2tC
(f)
="
ro ~
~ '"
?l .3
~ Q
];
"'
"
3
'"
'"
ro
"'
'-
o
~~
3"
C1> en
'-'
~-<
;: .~
15
;" i'
~
'-.
'f~:.-,
;::'/'/5 Photo
-;::WS ?!"!oto
":J:l.l U)
o ::;'e ~
en 3 =;. CD
() _. ~::l
=~ ~ ~;
~ ~~ 3
Q: co S Uj'
a ::::l ("l Ul
JJ 0 Q "er o'
(") to C1> :ti ::::l
2" c=; a... (n:l.l
~:l.lo 5.
m
"
"- '"
~ n '1J
=. "
ro <' "'
'" '" a
3' 0 "
" a. :l.
JJ '" (ii"
~ ~ ;!!
n i5
15 " '"
~ '-'
-<
'-'
S::;l>
'"' '../) ~ 3J
:l.l:..:.. 'J)
S'"UlS
" 0
~ z
(J152,.
.:. ~ 2
3 <: "
=~-
0" 0"
:::::l ::; ro
:lJ )> CD
(') 2. ~
"
'"
::r
"
OJ
~
15
"
(f)
"
'"
:5
3
....
'"
'"
o!::.
~ (f)
:.; '< -'
~~-
:;;';Qg
9 :3 ~.
@- -::.E -<
Ui-g~S.
] :J CD :T
"-CD"
CD ~
:l.O7
< ~
~ 5
=: ,~
,), 1j CL - / ;l,
....
\Z
\1\
'"
'" ~
(]
'""
, "
-
-.l
....,..
-
-
-
, '
-.:::
0
'-.
~
.... -
'" ,
~ 0
-
~
....,..
-
-.l
....
'"
'"
'"
.>" -",c._,'
----~:_~;-~
~
~
----...
r:JJ
~
bJJ
~
~
~
el"""'l
,....-\
~
,....-\
el"""'l
~
,....-\
~
~
o
el"""'l
~
~
z
~
;:s
o
.
~,
"""
:....
::l
......,
-
...J
'"'--
"'
"""
r-'
..-
......,
:....
,0
.......
':.IJ
~
':.IJ
"-
~
~
-
a
:.-..
~
:....
-
...J
,-,
'-'
r-'
,....
,-,
'-'
.,....
'J]
.,....
>
:....
-
...J
,-,
'-'
,-,
'-'
......,
r.r:-
......,
,-,
'-'
,-,
'-'
:....
r.r:-
"'
"""
>
.,....
CfJ
......,
r.r:-
-
.'"
c.
"'
'-'
r-
-
~
L
/0
/0
0-
0-
0-,
;::
;..
;::
;..
;::
,-
"
:=-
/0
==
-
;:
/0
;:
,-
;..
7:
/0
/0
/0
/0
0-
;..
/0
/0
/0
/0
/0
-::
"
;::
':J:
==
/0
z
z
/0
-
:;-
~
:[
;..
"
:::
;::
z
;;
;..
z
z
z
>
==
-::
~
z
;..
~
~
-/
;..
/0
-::
z
z
/0
:.(
:,[
:::
/
z
-
-/
z
=-.
;..
/0
/0
0-
"
--
-'
z
;..
J.
:r
/0
z
:'2
"
;..
;..
:;-
~
z
"
-'/
z
z
<-
~
;:
;..
/0
Z
/0
7:
;:
/0
;:
z
:.
;..
z
:r.
"
:.
e<:
'-
-
/0
,
d-.J/4 - J 3
/0
;..
0-
;::
;:
"
/0
~
"
:::
~
;:
"
~
z
z
z
z
0- _
z
-
~
:::
:::-
~
~
~
-
~
~
-
:::
-'2
~
~
:::
-=
-
'-
C/O
.-
3..
z
::
:::
/0
:::
::
/0
/
o
- ~
- 0
~
"'
Cc
~
:.
~
~
:::
2i:
-::
-::
'"
z
.::
::
::
C/O
'"
:.
/0
/0
;:
o
,
.1
."
,
~
1\:
(
i
-l;.~,~, :
. "'r"
. t.,:' l' .,
., ... .
~i ' . . A c, ~
-, ..-. ~
~' :~ ' I
. "
-"1,< _
/:\ ~
"~ It -
'l\\~j~
..\ 'l..j!
.J<;:c.l~r~
/0
/0
/0
;..
~
~
;..
/0
;..
/0
~
~
/0
/0
;..
/0
~
/0
/0
/0
0-
:.-
~
'"
J.
:;....- J:
==
;
"
/0
z
;..
'"
;:
;..
~
;:
"
/0
0-
J.
:J:
~
f
"-
/0
;..
/0
"
/. ::
/0
/,
0-
f
::::
;..
;..
7
:;-
~
z
c
I
~
,
"
! -;
-
'::; -=
=- ...... -
o
:0. -
-
-
- c
"2-
-
1;'
---
-
/ -
,
~
"
" -
~
~ ,
~
~
, -
=
=
- !.. =-
7'
,-
- -
- ,
::.. J; ~
_ c
/
~
c
- -
~
- - -
~ ~ /?
- -
-
-~ :::- ",
-= ::: :..
- .,. ~
::- =
:.. J.:
-
- ...: :::-
J-Ifev-) Y if N
_ - s.
~;l
:- f
-------
i
- -
::. :.. ::.. =:
,
- '-
7'
'7 -
~
- "
- ,
--'
::. - :..
~
./
J~.
- -
:;.. :..
-0
~ -
~ r_
~
J
~-
f ::
- - ::
::. oj;
J: 7"
"
~
=
::: .!
c
~
; - -
,
=
- ,
"
:. J
=
'-
!"-
= - Y-
'"
"
= :;::- ::: ::: '!
:- =
=: = ~
- ~
~
, ,-
,-
:::-7"
::: ::. :=. -
= ::: J -
=
1;: =
=.:..-.--
- .:::
- - -
- -
- -,
= -
- -, :::
-
/ .::
I .:::
- -
=
- -
- ::: / -
~ - -
- '-
- - / .- =
- :::c :::
::
- / -
::: - I ::: =
-
- :-
::: I
-
.- :r: ::: I
~ 'I; 'c =
~ '- :r. - ~
- -
'I; ::: - :::
- -
I -
.,. - -
- "
,. ::: -
filii - -
,.. I -
Q - :::c
/ -
- ... -
"" - '-
'" - -
~ -
- -
- ::: - ::: .-
- -
.. " :: -'::
-
'llI ::: -
~ - :- ::: -
~ ~ -':: - - - -
:::c - -
~ J: - ::: - .-
-, ~ -
- - -
~ -':: - /
., -
- -
'" "" -
....... ::: -
~ -
-
~ ::: -':: :::
- .-
-
- - :::
, -
,. , ,
/ - r' r'
..
I 0
/ CO
~
/ -
r
I
Z ~
-r -
z
::-
-, ~
Z
~
'"
rC
~
~
~
- /
~
~ J. it'<- -) ~
~
,~ =- :: ::.:- -
".
~ -
.-
~
- ;- :.. ::
::- - -
:
:
- ..
=-
!.: ;; :::
..::- -- ~
;
-
- -
,-
~:.
- -
- ::
:::..... --
- -:;
-:: :..
=
=
=-
=
=-
" -
~
"
~-::
~- ~
J ~.~,'.-a"
=
~
c
:::.::. :-
.
~
/ ~
=-
~ ':;
~
~
__ -::.. r
=
=-
~
_ ,.J "C"
=
_, - ~. r
c
:.:-- -!.,
"- -
-
:- ,.. -
~
'"
-:-
;:-f
~
~
-;. ~
~
::: .;.
!- I
-
"
c
::..--:
-
~
-:::: ::.
" -
~ -:: ! %..
~ --"
-f";. - -
::: ~.~-;::"
-;
! J
=
~ ~ ..
"
=
;.
- -
~- ~
.... I
- ";;.1 ~. :..
'L 'j "':
?
..
"-',:.
"
1:'
:/- -j
--------
" "
~
-!.. ~ -
..
-
,
.:, ~, '
~. ~,
~t\-
c
~
- ~ ~
:; i = ... ..-:
-
=-
:: ~ -
:::. t_
:. :'
; Z r
-!:; ;;
;(- ; :; ~ =- =-
- = ::::
-
=- - =
=-..:: r. -
- '
-.:: -.
,
,
=
I
- ,
i
=
- ' -
7
:: ::
=-
=
=- -
,- ::
- ,
~
=
: -
~
=
:: ::
=
=
"
f.
:-
f.
:--,
J.
Or
:'2
:--
:--
:::
:--
7:
f
f
;:.
E-=
:-
f
:::
:::
=
:::
-:
oJ:
-
cL
f
'"
f
:::
;;
f
/
f
f.
:::.
"
f.
f.
:::
;.r..
f.
:-
f
f
f
f
f.
~
f.
f
oJ:
f.
:z
:::
oJ:
:-
f.
oJ:
-=
"
:::
f
:;
:-
f
f
f
f.
J.
:-
:::
:::
:::
:::
7:
..:
:::
:--
:--
:--,
-
:-
f.
:::
:-
f.
f.
f
f
f
-:
:.r,
f
"
:r:
>
:-
:::
~
::: ~
~
.::
f.
f
f
=
"
f
:--
:--
:-
f.
f.
:::
f.
f.
f.
:J:
=
,-
:::
:r.
;;
:--
:::
-'
"
:--
:-
f
\Ij
~
\Ij
....
e
o
~
=-
'l<:.,.
....
..,
.~
~
.~
L~
~
.
>
~
~
=
o
:::
::[
.::
f
>
-
.::
-
~'
~
::::-
-'
'-
-
~
-
~
-
~
-
:::
::::-
-'
'-
~
-
~
-
-
:.;
-
~
'-
E:
~
-
-
-
'-
::
-
:.;
-
'/;
::::-
J:-
:.;
~
~
~
:::::
~
-
:-
t'
-
,...
-
~
~
~
~
~
:.;
-
~
-
'-
-
-
,...
-
'-
::
~
(
~
-
~
~:.r:.
~
.:::
~
-
,
'/;
~
~
~
-
~
-
::
'/;
-
~
-
-
.:::
'-
~
-
,...
-
~7<1--/?
:-
-
~
~
!:
.~
-
,...
~
~
,...
:::..
::-
,...
:.;
'f'
::-
'f"
..;
:-
;:
~
'2
:.;
~
~
-
;r.
,...
~
:-
~
-
-
~
~
",.
-
:.;
'/;
-
~
-
,...
:t:
:.;
'-
::::-
-
'-
-.:::
,...
~
,...
~
-
-
'-
-
'-
-
~
:-
~
::::-
:.;
~
-
~
'-
or
~.
-.:::
~
,...
'-
~
-
-
~
'/;
:.;
~
:::-
~
:.;
'f'
-.:
,...
-
-.:::
-
:-
~
-
(
~
-
~
'-
'/;
-
~
~
,...
:.;
-
~
-
~
'=
'-
.2
-
".
,...
'/;
;::
,...
~
.~
-.
)
-
,...
-
,...
f.
:-
~
~
'-
".
-
,...
'-
:-
::r.
,...
'/;
'-
::
.~
-
.~
~
-
'-
'/;
'/;
.r;
-
-
,:.r.
~
-
:::
:-
~
-
-
-.:::
'-
,...
.r;
-
~
,...
-
-
::
-
,...
",.
:::
~
~
'-
,...
:.;
-
-
,...
'/;
::::
-
~
~
~
,...
::
:.;
:::
:::
::
.::
'/;
::::-
J:
-
,...
:::::
~
'-
:::
-
,...
-
~
-
,...
-,
-
~
~
~
..::::
-
~
~
-
~.
-
'/;
:.;
'/;
-
-
:-
,...
::
'/;
::
......:..;.
-
~
'-
:.;
'/;
t'
t'
-
,...
~
'/;
~
-
/'
-.:
~
-
:;
-
,...
-
,...
~
-
".
~
'/;
-
'-
-
-
-.:::
::
-
,...
-
-
".
'-
~
-
~
~
-
.r;
,...
-
f
0=
-
':"" :::
-
,...
~~
::: .-
=
:::
~ -
-
-.:::
-:::; ..:;;:
"
f:~
~~
_~6
,
;: ::: -
- ~ ~
,
_ ii,::
c
cc
Z -::: !-
-
c
~ ,. -
cc
:::-::. I
~
; -
!.
~ !~ ..
~
~
- -
; L
'"(" ::
-: f :.. i :..
- -~ ~ ::
-!... -
~
:~~lt
~ - ~ ';- ':.-
-:::.j;:: I
'"; "'; - ~
~--:: '~
:: ::,-:::,.. ...
/~
!.
~~~~~
::. -...
~ ~.~
":...
/ -
i: f
-
" -
--::
- -
~
<
~-- - ~
,
;
-::
~ - ~
"
<
~
:.. :::
=
:: .::- - ~
::-- :: :::... J? -
~ _: f
... - :;-
- -
- -
i
'-
j';
=-
=
- - - -
--~~-
- - -
=
=
~
=
=
=
=-
=
~ f
=
=-
"
"
,
,
/
c
c -
....-. -
- .~
" -
"
:;:: :-::.
~ f -
-r-
- ""
::-.-
c
-: ::;""
:.. ~~
,
::: l;. !.
>.1'<. HO\'"f',gs-,"O~r.
"
"
"
~
-
~~
5.-
- -
~
,
/ /
c
_____~.-- ~_________r
~
"
-
-
~
~ >
oj,
,. 'i -
'-
-::
/
~
cc
'-
~
=
~.~
j ;K ~v"n",worn -;). 7!:c..: 7 ~
c
'-
~
c =
~
-
=
~
"
=
,
-
~
f f
~
-
f
~
"
-=
=
:.- --=:
"
~
~
f_
f
~
~
~
/
=
Z
=
f
f ~
=
'-
=
=
~
'-
f
~
-
-
~
-
~
-
f
"
-
- -
- -
-
-
-
~ -
rr. -
-
~ ::- -
~ :::
f
.. f
... ~r:
...
.. f
Q f
.. -
~
,.. f
- f
'I -
~~ :::: -
'"' - -
","", - -
f
- -
"\ ~
-
..;" ::- --
"
~,~~ - ~
- ~
~\ ~ -
>J- ~
I -
-
.. ,
.. r'
...
0
"
f ~
-~
- -
-
~
-
~ -
-
-
~ f
~
-
-
::: f
'-
::::
-
~
- -
-
::: -::: -
- f
f - --'
-~
:.r: f :::
,. '"
- ;::
~
:.:: -
~ f
-
,
r'
~
_c
~
7 d,t/a.. -/7
00
~
OJ)
=
~
I j
I
'~
~
u
-
-
-
...:::
-
-
,...
-
-
"J:
'-
.-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-.
-
-
-
-
'-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
:r
...;
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
'-
-
-
-
-'
-
.~
..,..
-
-
;,.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..,...
-
-
-
-
-
-
;,.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
:..
-
-
-
'-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"J:
'-
-
-
-
-
-
"J:
-.
-.
J:
-
2.(
-
-.
-
..",
-
-
-
,..
-
-
"'
-
"J:
-
:(
-
-
-
-
-
:::
-
-
-
-
-
:--
".
-
/.
-
:::
-
-
-
"J:
,...
-
'-
-
-
-
-
;.;
;.;
-
"'
-
-
-
;.;
"'
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
'-
...:::
-
-
-
-
.~
-.
'-
-
-
-
-
'-
-
-
-
-
-
(:
-
:r
....;
-
-
-
-
.-
-
"'
-
-
-
-
~
:..r:
-
'-
"'
:-
:-
-
.....
-
-
"J:
'-
-
-
-
.-
-
-
-
"'
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
~OG-~/tG
r.
;:
r.
:-
-'
-~
....;
.....
.....
.....
~I
r.
c
;:
~r
-
-
'-
r.
-.
-.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-:-
-
'-
:-
r.
:;
-
;:
;::
...:::
-
-
-
~
~
-
f.
f.
r.
::
:-
'-
"J:
:-
:-
-
-
-
;:
-
-
/.
-.
-.
J:
f.
:-
:.-
f.
-
-
-
-
r.
~ ..
-
-
-
-
-
-
-.
::";-
-
...:::
-
-
:(
f.
-
~
f.
~
~
~
:-
f.
:.
-;:=
:::
-
-
-
-
-
-
=
::
-
:J:
--::
-:
-
-
-
-
-
-
,...
-
"'
-
"'
-
-
-
,\';-1:' iI".'"
:>->1 ~J.~.f',1J I
~. {".t {/
~j j~~I~'~ I
;J~ J ., ~~.
;~ '~.. ~.
IJI.',~ J,
J.i. 1.. ~J .
I.' ~."
. '..,. '.
'r:..'." .
.~ . ~-I.I r~ .
J"1. '1#0' , .
"'1't J.
I.. ,..'~~, ..
J, III ".Jr.-I t
I J I ,,,-
~l . /.' . I
'!#' c-<~.
y, ";:fi !1.1,
-'II~ .~_
.J..h,1~ ,
1~~ .~~,,"-
i1 ./.i.t:..
.l. ~J'7,.~
;,.
-
-
"J:
-
-
-
"J:
~
,...
r.
f.
::
;:
::
f.
f.
:-
-
f.
-:
::
-
-:
:- -
-:
f.
"
f.
f.
OJ:
:-
;:
f.
:r
:::
-
'-
-
-
:.-
:;
:-
r.
f.
:.-,
f.
;::
f.
'f.
f. ;;
;::
f.
::
:.-
:-
:-
;:
f.
f.
::r
f.
z
J;~
~
.-
z :;....-.
:.
z >-
f.
:-
:-
'"
....,
z
1
r.
~
:-
;;:
r.
~
it
(J)
~
u..
:-
r.
r.
'"
~
;::
f
;:
~
;:
f
r.
f.
:-
f
;:
f.
f.
-:
f.
:;;..
-
-
:;
-
;::
-
-
.-
f. -
f.
:.-
z
;:
:-
;::
f
:-
"
0-
J:
~
-"-
~
:::: -=
;:::
"
"
"
f.-
I-
;:;
..:: :;
I-
e-
"
:=
"
~
;:;
I-
;.-
,.
,.
..:
-
I-
'J:
J. - :""1
,
J:
;:::
,
,..
J:
;:::
I-
,
;:::
-:
J:
;:::
,..
'"
,.
:.-
'"
~ "
:::I
.-::-
"
"
I-
..:
;:::
:,(
J:
L
:(
;:: ~-
:=:
:f.
= ;:::..
I-
;.-
:r;
I-
q:-
:J:
=: ~
::::
:::
:,(
-::
;
:2
;:
"
J:
,.
.2:
f."
"
I-
"
..:
:,(
"
;.-
"
I-
I-
;:::
'-
~ ..:::
_c
~,
:.-
;:::
J:
,.
,.
;:::
"
;:;
:=
::: :;...
I-
'"
::
;.-
"
~
;.-
J:
'-
:.-
"
I-
;:::
I-
I-
I-
-:
,.
--
-= ....c:
J:
I-
/. .J.
I-
;:::
- .::
:.-
:r
:=
;:::
:::
:,(
"
"
-
"
I-
e-
:r;
:,(
--'
:::
:r
;:::
I-
I-
.-::
:,( -:
:,(
-
.
;:.
;:::
I-
:;...- =
z. -
-/
-"
cr,
:J.
:::
"
;:::
I-
-
:.f.
I-
-'- .:::.
--'
-"
--'
;:::
;:::
;::: -
:;
I-
"
- -
~
~
-.i
,.
'"
i.
~
,.
I-
:.-
'"
J:
-"
J:
"
-r
/
'-
;:;
J:
J:
..:
;
'"
J:
J:
J:
'"
f
"
J:
J:
;:;
J:
,
~
,
I
"
'"
--
:c
J:
"
;.-
;:::
I-
J:
I-
~
;;:
-
;:::
I
-i'
,..,...: ~-
If. .' r-,'
. -;.--;~.;..,,'
.,..'
, ..
~
... .-J-- .
'l_ ..{ -
-"
>-
-~
~
IJj
--
E
e
~
;...
~
o
bJJ
s::
- """
""""'"
""""'"
--
~.
~
....
IJj
~
bJJ
s::
~
"""'-'
"""'-'
~
""'"
"""""'"
CJ
~
-
E.::
bJJ
s::
--
---
~
~
~
~
7.
~
/
~
00
-"
-co
:--
:.r. :::
=
t'-
-
;
f
-
~
~
.f
.:=
-
-
t'~
7.
~
-"
~
:--
:(
=-
:r.
~
;:
f
7.
f
=
f
~
-
:;::
f
f
-
~
~
::
-"
f
"
-:
f
=
f
--
- -.;:
-=
J; ':::
f
=.. ..:: /:
f
--
f
t': ~
:--
"
-"
;
;
-
7.
~
"
~
::2
-"
::
--
"
t'i
--..J
-"
"
f
~
"
=
~
.::
~
=
f
..::: f.
.f
;
=
f
f
:;..- ;::
::::
Or
=
~
-
'-
~
=
f
:.(
/: -=
"
~
f
"
f
-
::: ::::
""
0-
--
~
-
~
f
f
~
Z
f
I'i
-
f
f
f
=r.
f
"
~
::::
-=
~
f
::c J:
=
-
~
f
f
f
~
-,,--=
;
f
:--
-
f
f
f
-
f
"
"
/: 7.
~
:::.. :.--
--
f.
f
f
~
:--
;
f
f
'"
'"
f
;
f
~
--"
::::
-=
~
t'! ~ t'I
f
"
7.
~
00
f.
f.
f.
f
'"
=
"
f
f
~
f
f:
f
~
f
"
;
-"
J: -/
f
"
"
.:: -=
-=
=
7:
=
~
"
:J: ;::
=
021jCv-c13
-=
f
"
f
f
~
--:
f
"
~
~
-
--
"
f
/:
t'~
f
'"
-
7.
;;
.:=
.=
-=
~
f
~
:J:
:J:
=
"-
-
f
f
;0
7.
"
~
~
--"
;;
f
:--
Z
t'~
~
~
"
.::
'"
;; .....:::
'"
'"
co
~
'"
"
.7: ....::.
f
;;
f
/:
f
~
:--
o
/:
;
=
"
~
~
"
~
=
-:
=.-
--
~
=
=
f
"
z
t'
~
~
f
f
'"
J
f
f
:::. /.
f
-
f
f
f
.:=
~
"-
~
f
f
~:
t-
~
/.
~
~
~
~
f
,r.
f -=
-;
'"
=
f
f
=
f -
-=
"
"
::::
f
~
~
~~
=
~
:
"
"
"
~
=
"
~
--"
"
'"
f
f
;
'"
~
;
~
"
:r. J:
f
f
=
"
=
-"
~
~
"
"
=
'"
"
.) /. LA-J--'-
TO:
Honorable Mayor and Council
I
FROM:
Barry Johnson
City Manager
STAFF REPORT
CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH
DATE: September 3, 1997
SUBJECT: San Diego National Wildlife Refuge
BACKGROUND:
Mayor Pro Tern Donn Hall brought forward a report raising concern over the potential impact of the proposed
San Diego National Wildlife Refuge may have upon the City of Imperial Beach. There was a desire to sponsor
a mini-summit with other interested parties to discuss the issue. Instead, staff was directed to work with Mayor
Pro Tern Hall to develop a more detailed game plan. Staff has met with Mayor Pro Tern Hall and a strategy
has been prepared.
DISCUSSION:
An Environmental Assessment has yet to be completed for the South Bay Unit portion of the San Diego
National Wildlife Refuge. This document, which will drive any future activity, is scheduled for completion
later this month. From this point, the overall gameplan proposed is as follows:
I. Prepare a letter to interested South Bay cities advising of concern over project and desire to jointly
monitor program to assure that local jurisdiction input and discretion is maximized. Include a
description of our strategic process intended to assure coordination.
2. Await completion of Environmental Assessment (EA).
3. Allow time for staff to review EA and identify common concerns and issues with other agencies' staff.
4. Allow each agency's staff to bring forward report of issues and concerns to their respective governing
bodies. Receive comments and appoint a Council representative for a joint meeting of concerned
entities, if they're interested.
5. Request U.S. Fish and Wildlife to present workshop with group. Have group formulate common
concerns and issues for U.S. Fish & Wildlife.
6. Request U.S. Fish and Wildlife to schedule multiple public input workshops in each city.
ACTION:
9/3/97 Motion to send a letter to fish & wildlife inviting them to make a presentation to include: a
summary oftbe plan, the Recreational, economical and environmental impacts of the plan, and how
Imperial Beach and other cities may be impacted. In the letter, express council's concern that the
City does not want the presentation put DITto the extent we are unable to respond to legitimate
concerns that the plan proposes - Council wants to receive:;r'efing of the above in a timely manner. Jd
Motion carried unanimously. 1 LI a- '-:l...
0' -I' ITEM #
Page 2
Date: September 3, 1997
Subject: San Diego National Wildlife Refuge
STAFF REPORT
CITY OF
IMPERIAL BEACH
FISCAL IMPACT:
None directly related to this report.
CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends City Council approach strategy as described relating to San Diego Wildlife Refuge.
Prepared by:
/l~
,J2/~~~
ITEM #-'!j
TRANSMfITAL TO:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
STAFF REPORT
FROM:
Barry Johnson, City Manager
CITY OF
IMPERIAL BEACH
DATE:
July 16, 1997
ORIGINATING DEPr:
Barry Johnson, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Wildlife Habitat Protection Plan
mSc.nSSTON:
Mayor Pro Tern Hall to update Council concerning the concept plan for San Diego National Wildlife Refuge.
FTSC'AL IMPAC'T:
None.
nRPA RTMRNT RRC'OMMRNnA TTON:
Receive update of the plan from Mayor Pro Tern HaJJ.
C'ITY MANAGRR'S RRC.OMMF.NnATTON:
Receive update of the plan from Mayor Pro Tern HaJJ.
/~.
f
t~
,,/
\
, I
/"----1-------1
Barry Johnson, / Manager
ACTI~N: 8/ /97 Accepted staff recommendation (directed staff to meet
w.th Mayor Pro Tern Hall and formulate another approach; to
I ok at the status of the environmental assessment, the proces'
a d bring back more information, perhaps at a study session.)
M6tion carried unanimously.
.!----1
.21/a- - 2/r
ITEM # d~
G:\CT1'-CNCL.RPT\1UOHNSON\REFUGEPL.WPD
lernal pools, estuarine
system, eelgrass beds. mud
flats, saltmarsh. salt
ponds. coastal sage scrub,
southern
maritime
chaparral, stipa and mlley
needlegrass grasslands,
freshwater
marsh,
southern interior cypress
forest, native grassland,
riparian scrub, riparian
woodlands, maritime
succulent scrub vernal
pools, estuarine system.
eelgrass beds, mud flats,
saltmarsh, salt ponds,
coastal sage scrub.
sOl/thern
maritime
chaparral, stipa and mlley
needlegrass grasslands,
freshwater
marsh,
southern interior cypress
forest. native grassland,
I'ernal pools. estuarine
s\'Stem, eelgrass beds. mud
flats. saltmarsh, salt
ponds. coastal sage scrub.
sOl/thern
maritime
chaparral, stipa and valleI'
Conceptual Management Plan
San Diego
National Wildlife Refuge
San Diego County, California
~
/
~
/' ~
- - - ~ /
;_~=:-:~~_~~-~?:~_:~~~~~':=- ~-~__: --- -fV;r-~ /1
o .: .= ~-~.::~:~~~~'-~'}~~~:.-::'-::~~~~~~--:-:~::~
~ ...........:...-.-:---- -... . ~.......--~,~_... ---~--
Y-'- .',(" '.' ..:.--:: ~ . '> -~ - .~~ .--+",...
-ftv ~h ~~ .A~" "'- l J -'-, .,.... ~--,,"";. - -/ -":..' ..:;
/_ .vN" .r' ". -.~ ,.. .......\..-'....._
~ ~~l ~ .l~
/ /'v 'i4J't..-',A....
"'wc, ~~ "\
A~ ,.u" ~.-
~"""--\....o-"Tr'"
,1M- ~
tit
,,' . . '~"-
.,.c. .
..... C'<', .., .~.. ... .~-~r;~:J~~~~:::~'C~~~a." =-',c~son
....... - ~,..-
United States Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service 02 ~l- -:2 /
),m HI:":ild \.f"!/fI!Il!T1
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction................................................................................... 1
National Wildlife Refuge System....... ..... ...... ...... ...... ........... ..............2
Refuge Administration.....................................................................8
Key Areas of Management Focus.. ........ .......... ....... ........... ....... ........10
Public Use and Wildlife-Dependent Recreational Activities................14
Rights-of-Ways and Easements......................................................21
Law Enforcement.......................................................................... 21
Facilities Development and Management. ......... ..... .............. ...... .... 22
Fire Management ........................................................................ 22
Interagency and Public Coordination ....... ......... ........ ....... ............. .23
Figures
Figure 1. Otay-Sweetwater Unit. Vernal Pools Stewardship Project.
and Proposed South San Diego Bay Unit............................3
Figure 2. Approved Refuge Boundary for the Otay-Sweetwater Unit....-1
Figure 3. Approved Boundary for the Vernal Pools
Stewardship Project........................................................... 5
Figure 4. South San Diego Bay PlanningArea...................................6
Figure 5. Conceptual Wildlife-Dependent Recreational Activities.......19
Tables
Table 1. Interim Compatibility Determinations and Interim Uses
for the Otay-Sweetwater Unit..............................................16
Table 2. Interim Compatibility Determinations and Interim Uses
for the Vernal Pools Unit.....................................................17
,;U! Ct.- -;2 [5
Introduction
This Conceptual Management Plan provides a general description of the
management approaches being considered for the San Diego National
Wildlife Refuge (Refuge). The San Diego Refuge includes the Otay-
Sweetwater Unit. Vernal Pools Stewardship Project. and proposed
South San Diego Bay Unit (see figure I), The Conceptual Management
Plan presents a broad overview of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
(Service) proposed management approaches to wildlife and habitats.
public uses and wildlife-dependent recreational activities. wildfire
suppression and prescribed burning. rights-of-ways and easements.
law enforcement. facilities. interagency coordination 'With the Multiple
Species Conservation Program preserve. and public outreach within the
San Diego National Wildlife Refuge. The Service developed this Con-
ceptual Management Plan during the planning process to provide land-
owners. government agencies. and the interested public with a general
understanding of the anticipated management approaches for the San
Diego Refuge. The proposed management actions will only apply to
lands that are included within the National Wildlife Refuge System.
lndhidual er.vironmental assessments and land protection plans have
been prepared by the Service that analyze the environmental effects of
establishing the Otay-Sweetwater Unit and Vernal Pools Stewardship
Project of the San Diego Refuge (see figures 2 and 3). The
emironmental assessment and land protection plan for the proposed
South San Diego Bay unit is still in
preparation (see figure 4). The Conceptual
Management Plan describes the general
management needs for the approved Refuge
boundaries for the Otay-Sweetwater Unit
and Vernal Pools Stewardship Project of the
San Diego Refuge as described in the
individual environmental assessments and
the planning area for the proposed South
San Diego Bay Unit.
The Service would prepare a
Comprehensive Management Plan and
step-down Refuge management plans as
lands are acquired. The Comprehensive Management Plan would detail
Refuge operations and would specifY the types and locations of public
use activities; monitoring and recovery of endangered, threatened, and
rare species: fire management: and other operational needs. Step-
down Refuge management plans would address such programs as fire
management. hunting. and other public uses. The Comprehensive
Management Plan and step-down Refuge management plans would be
developed with public input in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act.
Rancho San Diego
c2 '-/0- -;z 9
National Wildlife Refuge System
The National Wildlife Refuge System is a national network of protected
lands and waters dedicated for wildlife. The first national wildlife
refuge was established in 1903 and the System now numbers more
than 508 refuges. with at least one refuge in every state. California has
37 national wildlife refuges covering more than 400.000 acres.
Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System
The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is to preserve a
national network of lands and waters for the conservation and
management of fish. wildlife. and plant resources of the United States
for the benefit of present and future generations.
Guiding Principles of the National Wildlife Refuge System
a. Habitat. Fish and wildlife will not prosper without high-quality
habitat. and without fish and wildlife. traditional uses of refuges
cannot be sustained. The Refuge System will continue to conserve
and enhance the quality and diversity of fish and wildlife habitat
within refuges.
h. Public Use. The Refuge System provides important opportunities
for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational activities involving
hunting. fishing. wildlife observation and photography. and
environmental education and interpretation.
c. Partnerships. America's sportsmen and women were the first
partners who insisted on protecting valuable wildlife habitat within
wildlife refuges. Conservation partnerships with other Federal
agencies. State agencies. Tribes. organizations. industry. and the
general public can make significant contributions to the growth
and management of the Refuge System.
d. Public Involvement. The public should be given a full and open
opportunity to participate in decisions regarding acquisition and
management of our National Wildlife Refuges.
Figure 1 Otay-Sweetwater Unit. Vernal Pools Stewardship Project.
and Proposed South San Diego Bay Unit.
San Diego National Wildlife Refuge
..
VERNAL POOLS
STEwARDSHIP PROJECT
/-----
I
\-~
( 'C<-
\ ~
l ."
'" '
!AREA . ~ )
: (NLARGED:=-. '
PROPOSED SOUTH
SAN DIECO BAY
UNIT
~
~
Sa" Vi"c~"tp
/I
Rm~~
.: lC.W
,",
\
)
;/
\~
\~7
~N
V
UJ/(p Jennings
""
~
DIEGO
NA TIONAL
Pacific
Ocean
FOREST
-----
Mexico
Bltr.ll'S OUY NATIONAL
LAND AND WILOUrE
lr.lANAGEIr.rIENT AREA
~/~ -3 /
figure 2 Approved Refuge Boundary for the Otay-Sweetwater Unit.
San Diego National Wildlife Refuge
0 Otav Sweetwater Unit
0 Rancho San Diego
0 Vernal Pools Unit
>
0 Streams
- -
0 Major Roads
.
f>~
oS.
.;,.+'" ROw!
{\",<:-
......~
~~r
~,~;)'"
","
".
Yo,
R""
>
J
;-oe:he'~ ~ ~
o ,
-J!!JZ!J'_-.
2
3
4
.
.
""~
~, - --
u/-..~-;.-
Me GiDly Sycuan
__ Peak
Miles
()
lr,g~;'~Q4
'"
.,-
>
/,
~''''' ,- ...;
//, \P"""~~
:f-1",'
,,:-1-
0,-
Or~, I
-'4 ~-
""-f'"
'"
..of
o.
c:i'.....
T~leg';l.Q~
l
.
O~y
!\1ountain
Figure 2
Otay-Sweetwater Unit
Approved Refuge Boundary
uu.y_K~
2J!d-32
Figure 3 Approved Boundary for the Vernal Pools Stewardship Project.
San Diego National Wildlife Refuge
Del Mar
Me s a {fJJi/I?
PACIFIC
>'II Lopez
Ridge
-
c?MIR~~--; - - - --l
_ RfSfRVOIR '
I
"- ~ SAN VINCENTE
V RESERVOIR
,
,
Nav~ AirSlation/
~crine Corps Air Station
, ;;s- Miramor
LAKE JfNNINGS
SWffTWATE/R P
RESERVOIR(~
OCEAN
LOWER orA r ~
RESERVOIR (?
01 a 6 -IIIIIIII '
Me S.........
S.,;n. UNITED ST AT_E~ _ - - - -
Conyon _---
- - - - - MEXICO
-~--
-----
~
0 . 8 12 K'"
, ,
..
o 5 ~I
V[RN.l.L POOL CO"'PLEXES
2Vo.,-53
Figure 4 South San Diego Bay Planning Area.
San Diego National Wildlife Refuge
\ \
City Boundory Lln..- \ \
Z
<t
w
(.)
o
Cl
-
L....
-
Cl
0:
U.$. Naval
ROdio StCltion
@
~
, ,
,,\
\ \'
,,\
\ \'
,,\
\ \ '
,,\
\ \'
,,\
~~
\ \ i
South San
\ \ \
Moin St
Palm AVfI Palm Ave
v; v; ,
" Imperial Beach 5 I
II :
,
Coronado Ave I
-,
,
02 fc~ --.3 i
D
South Son Diego Bay
Planning Area
Goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System
a. To preserve. restore. and enhance in their natural ecosystems
(when practicable) all species of animals and plants that are
endangered or threatened with becoming endangered.
b. To perpetuate the migratory bird resource.
c. To preserve a natural diversity and abundance of fauna and
flora on refuge lands.
d. To provide an understanding and appreciation of
fish and wildlife ecology and the human's role in
the environment; and to provide refuge visitors
with high quality. safe. wholesome. and enjoyable
recreational experiences oriented toward wildlife to
the extent these activities are compatible with
the purposes for which the refuge was
established.
1'; .-
; ~fji
ia-1i
Iw;,". ,-
11,.11
l(enlSaIMc," _s:-:,'s
The San Diego National Wildlife Refuge. including the Otay-
Sweetwater. Vernal Pools. and South San Diego Bay units. will be
managed as part of the National Wildlife Refuge System in accordance
with the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966.
Refuge Recreation Act of 1962. Executive Order 12996 (Management
and General Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System), and
other relevant legislation.
executive orders. regulations.
and policies.
Purpose of the San Diego
National Wildlife Refuge
The purpose of the San Diego
National Wildlife Refuge is to
protect. manage. and restore
wildlife habitats for federally
listed endangered and
threatened species and
migratory birds and to
maintain and enhance the
biological diversity of native
plants and animals.
Wigrawry I"/s/roTS. DrJV.-jrchers
ell/&..--- JS'
-I
//
E,'/.
...'-'
- ~~' -
~~-~
. ,
~~
~4---C_~<.;..'~ -. _'~-.::
,....-- . -').:"1\.-
The following goals of the San Diego/" .;
Refuge reflect the core mission of the U.S. '~~~f"
Fish and Wildlife Service to protect "I ~ "
wildlife resources of national importance ,(~, . , ~,','"
while providing compatible . "';;.
opportunities for the public to '""Io,","~' '.l."
appreciate and enjoy the natural 1m" "',"
heritage of the region.
Goals of the San Diego
National Wildlife Refuge
a. Endangered Species/Essential Habitats: To
protect, restore, and enhance native habitats to -,\
aid in the recovery of federally listed endangered 'X
and threatened species and to prevent the listing of \,
. . . Ker-daIMc"s JS;;;\/S
additIonal speCies.
b. Biological Diversity: To protect, manage, and restore the rare coastal
sage scrub. chaparral. riparian woodland, vernal pools. coastal dune.
and wetland habitats representative of the biological diversity of the
southwestern San Diego region.
c. Cooperative Programs: To create partnerships and provide leader-
ship in coordinating the land management activities of Federal.
Tribal. State. and local governments and agencies. and with
academia. private conservation organizations, and citizens insupport
of the Multiple Species Conservation Program preserve system.
d. Migratory Birds: To provide breeding, migration. and wintering
habitat for migratory birds. with emphasis on
seabird and shorebird breeding habitat. and
wintering waterfowl habitat.
e. Public Use: To provide safe and high quality
opportunities for compatible wildlife-
dependent educational and recreational
activities that foster public appreciation
of the unique natural heritage of the San
Diego region.
Refuge Administration
~~
..",,~ /-
k,' ...;t
"0. : J'
" ./! i:.J; . ",--
111'\ -. I
/ \ ' .J'
Y/A~\i.i, \i1--:~~~'\;.~\
" ,~\;
, ,"&~
o(enaa' '.Ie" ~ ~ S,'i.'S
As lands are acquired by the Service from willing sellers. funding for
the operations and maintenance of the new San Diego Refuge would be
needed. Management funds would be needed for new staff.
administrative support, program and facility development. and
c2J!e.-- ~ 36
maintenance. In addition. operational funding for the new Refuge may
also include funding for detailed planning to ensure that programs and
facilities foster the purpose for which the Refuge was established and to
involve the public in the Refuge management process.
The development of San Diego Refuge staff. programs. and facilities
would be phased in over time as the land base and management
responsibilities expand. Refuge program and staff development are
anticipated to take several years and would reflect the availability of
funds appropriated by Congress to support the Refuge. Congressional
funding for refuge operations and maintenance lags behind the
establishment of a new refuge or addition of lands to existing refuges
by several years. In the interim. the Service usually provides limited
start-up funding from current appropriations by reducing the budgets
of existing refuges elsewhere in the country or by incurring budget
increases. However. start-up funds are not adequate to immediately
develop facilities and programs at the new Refuge.
During the 3- to 5-year start-up period. the Refuge may operate certain
programs under an interim management plan. The goal of the interim
management plan is to provide essential resource protection within the
Refuge and to provide scaled-down opportunities for the public to enjoy
their natural heritage. During this start-up phase. the Service would
also involve the public in defining the long-term goals and objectives of
the Refuge and in identifYing future programs and facilities through the
development of a Comprehensive Management Plan.
Because of the time lag between land acquisition and base funding for
Refuge operations and maintenance. there may be a perception that the
Service is more interested in acquiring land than implementing
programs for wildlife stewardship and public use. However. the interim
start-up period provides both the Service and public with an
opportunity to ensure that the Refuge is developed with sound
planning to conserve wildlife and to meet a community's and the
nation's long-term expectation for quality programs.
The budget for the San Diego Refuge would include funds for salaries.
facilities. capital improvements. equipment and infrastructure
maintenance. biological surveys. habitat restoration. fire management.
and supplies. The Refuge staff would include administrative.
biological. law enforcement, public use. environmental education. and
maintenance positions. Whenever possible. the talents and skills of
volunteers would be used for specific Refuge management projects.
Staff positions would be incrementally added as lands are acquired and
funds are available. Initial staffing for the San Diego Refuge lands at
Rancho San Diego would include personnel with biological. law
enforcement, and fire management skills.
c2L/c.- - 37
Office. shop. storage facilities. visitor contact
stations. and educational facilities would likelv
be needed for the Vernal Pools and Otav-
Sweetwater units. Existing buildings on
acquired or leased properties may be used or
new facilities may be constructed to meet this
need. The proposed South San Diego Bay Cnit
would be managed from additional office and
work space at the existing Tijuana Slough
National Wildlife Refuge located at Imperial
Beach. Refuge field offices would continue to be
supervised from the San Diego National Wildlife
Refuge Complex office in Carlsbad. California.
Key Areas of Management Focus
The key areas of initial focus for the San Diego
National Wildlife Refuge would be habitat and
wildlife management. wildlife-dependent
recreational activities. public uses beyond the
lIelland ,'i.,iIM. Black-necked ",It scope of wildlife-dependent activities. rights-of-
ways and easements. law enforcement. facilities
development and management. fire management. and interagency
coordination. In general. the management approach for the Otay-
Sweetwater. Vernal Pools. and South San Diego Bay units would be to
allow natural processes that benefit the conservation of wildlife to
continue on Refuge lands to the extent that human life and private
property are not jeopardized. Refuge management would also include
active manipulation of habitats. such as conducting prescribed burns.
controlling nonnative species. restoring wetlands. and providing
wildlife-dependent visitor services.
Habitat and Wildlife Management
Native habitats and plant communities would
generally be managed for the recovery of
endangered. threatened. and rare species.
Active modification and manipulation of
intact native plant communities would
be avoided as appropIiate. In native
plant communities that have suffered
some form of limited disturbance.
management actions may involve
eradicating nonnative plant species.
replanting native plants. restoIing
hydrological conditions. suppressing
wildfires. and conducting prescIibed
burns. On severely degraded sites.
J. 'I c:'- - .sr
OIJ\
\It' ~11
nllnl
~ Si"afl Er'C,",son
intensive restoration projects involving heavy equipment.
herbicide application. native plantings. and long-term
monitoring may be required.
Wildlife management would include monitoring
the distribution and abundance patterns for
selected endangered and threatened species.
migratory birds. and other wildlife species:
controlling nonnative animal species. such as
the brown-headed cowbird: manipulating
habitats to provide nesting and feeding areas:
and continuing research on limiting factors for
endangered and threatened species. Where native
habitats abut urban areas. monitoring and controlling feral
cats and dogs and fugitive ornamental plants on Refuge
lands may be necessary. Livestock grazing on Refuge lands
would be phased out unless determined to be needed as a
management tool. The Service would continue to work with
the Biological Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey. . $h.",.,,",,"
California Department of Fish and Game. and various
universities on research on the biology of endangered. threatened. and
rare species and their habitats.
LI'll.11
Bdf's
\in'iJ
Native habitats would be managed for multiple wildlife species in an
integrated fashion. For example. the endangered least Bell's vireo is
characterized as a riparian woodlands species. However. adjoining
chaparral habitats provide important foraging habitat for the least
Bell's vireo. In this case. both riparian and upland habitats
would be managed together to provide nesting and
foraging habitats for the least Bell's vireo.
Similar integrated habitat management
strategies would be used for the complex of
species using both coastal sage scrub and
chaparral.
Riparian habitats would be managed -_~,~
primarily for the recovery and
restoration of the endangered least
Bell's vireo. endangered southwestern
willow flycatcher. endangered
southwestern arroyo toad. and
threatened California red-legged frog. -
Nonnative plant species. such as tamarisk and
arrundo cane. would be controlled in riparian
woodlands and riparian scrub habitats. Integrated
;21/A -59
Riparian Woodland and Riparian
Scrub Habitats
i.r ;,
'.; I
Y
.,
.' ~\
c:""
, ',-
.
<........;1../.
..~
f
\',/1:
, :l<<'
\-' ;"
,
,'....'
0( '/
i.y ~
~.
\
, \
-,:~ ~:~'''~'' .~i~ \
'...._;~ \
,
, ,,'
'\ ~ ;
'?
-
.
Cu/ifornia
gnalcatcha
Kencal Moms USFWS
J
pest management. including mechanical and chemical methods. would
be used to control nonnative plant species. To protect aquatic and
riparian habitats. the Service would avoid diverting surface water or
withdrawing groundwater within and adjacent to the ripartan zone.
The distribution and abundance of the least Bell's vireo. southwestern
willow flycatcher. and migratory songbirds would be monitored. The
control of the brown-headed cowbird within the range of the least Bell"s
vi.reo on Refuge lands would be a
critical ongoing management goal.
Coastal sage scrub habitats would
be managed for the recoverv of
the threatened coastal California
gnatcatcher and other rare species
such as the San Diego horned
lizard and orange-throated
whip tail lizard. In general. coastal
sage scrub and chaparral habitats
would not be actively
P"".wl;''',,' manipulated. However. disturbed
coastal sage scrub habitat and abandoned foot trails may be replanted
with native species to accelerate the recovery of natural habitats.
Monitoring threatened and rare species within coastal sage scrub
would be an important management goal. In particular. the
distribution and abundance of the coastal California gnatcatcher would
be monitored. Wildfires in coastal sage scrub and chaparral would be
suppressed by using existing fire roads and firebreaks wherever
possible (see section on Fire Management).
,.
. "'.
_..,..~....
~...'
".~ ...- ".:-'-' --
~-t.:~'"
..;..
..
~
.r...-e-
~
-.
~ ~.-.t"
"
','
~.
~~..
.,
.,
-.
-ti. ..-
.;. ...$j:......
.' .;1;:/0.,
.~~~ .~~
.~
f:~"'~
._.,~1'
r.-' ~W;"~ .
,...~!'_~,.~.
c~..
..
...,.
<flii
,./!"
.... .
....
..;'~'
....
.~~.(
Grassland Habitats
Coastal Sage Scrub and
Chaparral Habitats
Native grasslands would be preserved and restored because of their
relative scarcity. Depending on the site history. nonnative grasslands
may be manipulated to restore native habitats. Site restoration may
require mechanical and herbicide treatments prior to planting
appropriate mixtures of native plant species. However. the need to
maintain nonnative grasslands as raptor foraging habitat would be
balanced with the goal to restore native plant communities. Wildfires
and prescribed burns in grasslands would be managed by using
existing fire roads. firebreaks. and wetlines. Wildfire suppression
would use existing roads and fire breaks wherever possible (see section
on Fire Management).
-2 if Oc- - L/O
Vernal Pool Habitats
Management of vernal pool habitats
would include fencing, boundary and
interpretive signs. nonnative plant
removal. and monitoring. Where
feasible. vernal pools would be
restored and the drainage basin
revegetated with native plant cover to
reduce sediment erosion.
Freshwater Wetland Habitats
\ "anal p(Jnl
Open water habitats and much of the wetlands with emergent
vegetation are on lands that would be managed under cooperative
agreements among the Otay Water District. Sweetwater Authority. and
the Service. Consistent with these cooperative agreements. emergent
wetlands and open water would be managed as habitats for migratory
waterfowl and other migratory birds.
Tideland. Salt Marsh. Salt
Pond. and Coastal Dune
Habitats
_...,.....,.
. r-" .-.
~~;...,-
::.~:;-"
California
least {ern
Tideland. salt marsh. salt pond.
and coastal dune habitats are
found 'Within the proposed
South San Diego Bay Unit.
Several potential habitat
management activities are being
considered. Salt marsh and
salt pond habitats on Refuge
lands may be restored by
removing dikes and fill and South Bay Salt Pond" '" PhillIp Roulla,d
enlarging culverts to improve tidal exchange. Water levels in salt
ponds may be managed to provide shallow mudflat habitats for
migratory shorebirds. Predator control for nesting shorebirds. such
as the California least tern. would continue on Service lands.
Seasonal closures of important waterbird areas in south San
Diego Bay to certain boating activities may
also be proposed in coordination with the
San Diego Unified Port District and
California State Lands Commission.
Habitat restoration projects. such as
replanting eelgrass beds. may be
considered to improve the biological
productivity of South San Diego Bay.
;?J! Ci- - Lj I
Public Use and Wildlife-Dependent
Recreational Activities
As part of the National Wildlife Refuge System. the San Diego National
Wildlife Refuge will provide opportunities for wildlife-dependent
recreational uses that are compatible with the refuge purpose
[Executive Order 12996). As an urban refuge. San Diego National
Wildlife Refuge is poised to provide the people of San Diego and the
nation with numerous opportunities to gain better appreciation and
understanding of the region's unique wildlife heritage and to enjoy the
refuge's open spaces.
Unlike most lands managed by the U. S. Bureau of
Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service.
national wildlife refuges are not multiple-use lands.
On national wildlife refuges wildlife purposes are
always the primary land use. However. the Service
promotes the wildlife-dependent recreational
activities of hunting. fishing. wildlife observation
and photography. interpretation. and environmental
education whenever those uses are compatible with
the purpose(s) of the refuge unit. The Service is
committed to providing high-quality. safe. and
accessible wildlife-dependent interpretation.
recreation. and education opportunities at San
Diego National Wildlife Refuge. Within the
capabilities of allocated staff and budget. many
compatible public use opportunities will be
avallable.
High quality wildlife-dependent recreational
opportunities rely on healthy habitats and healthy
populations of endangered species. migratory birds. and other native
species. Therefore. some constraints on public use and recreation are
necessary. Unlimited public access and use of Refuge lands could
easily degrade the resources that make a visit to a national wildlife
refuge so special.
.
\1
I
~
~ I
f
I
National laws and policies provide the guidance and planning
framework to insure that Americans can enjoy their National Wildlife
Refuge System while protecting these special lands from incompatible '
or harmful human activities. Guidance is derived from the National
Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act. the Refuge Recreation Act.
and Executive Order 12996. Key issues of compatibility. availability
of funds and staff. and prohibited activities are discussed in this
Conceptual Management Plan.
cJ, J/ C't- - zJ;L
Most lands within the Otay-Sweetwater Unit and some lands ,-,<ithin the
Vernal Pools Unit are currently privately owned and not open for
general public use. Trespass on private lands is a source of concern for
landowners because of increased liability. damage to property. and
vandalism. Public use activities would be limited to Sen.ice lands only.
All public entry and use of Refuge lands are at the discretion of the
Refuge Manager. All uses must be compatible '-'ith the purposes of the
affected refuge unit. If the proposed use is found to be compatible. the
use may be authorized by the Refuge Manager if management funds
and staff are available and other laws. regulations.
and policies are satisfied.
Before activities or uses are allowed on a national
'-'ildlife refuge. Federal law requires that they be
formally determined to be ". . . compatible '-'ith the
major purposes for which such areas were
established. . ." (National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act of 1966). A compatible use is
"An allowed use that '-'ill not materially interfere
'-'ith or detract from the purposes for which the
unit was established" (Fish and Wildlife Service
Manual. 602 FW 1.4.A). For recreational uses to be
allowed. a Refuge Manager must further determine
that the uses are practicable. '-'ill not interfere '-'ith
the primary purposes for which the areas were
established. and funds are available for the
development. operation. and maintenance of these
permitted forms of recreation (Refuge Recreation Act
of 1962).
The Service is required to identifY. prior to acquisition of new refuges or
additions to existing refuges. those existing '-'ildlife-dependent recre-
ational activities that would be allowed to continue (Executive Order
12996 Management and General Public Use of the National Wildlife
Refuge System). These activities include hunting. fishing. '-'ildlife
photography. '-'ildlife observation. environmental education. and
environmental interpretation. The Otay-Sweetwater Unit supports a
range of '-'ildlife-dependent recreational activities such as upland game
bird and deer hunting. freshwater fishing on public reservoirs and
streams. wildlife photography and observation. and environmental
education and interpretation (see table I). Within the Vernal Pools Unit.
the inventory of '-'ildlife-dependent recreational activities includes
upland game bird hunting. wildlife photography. ~dlife observation.
environmental education. and interpretation (see table 2). Wildlife-
dependent recreational activities that occur '-'ithin the proposed South
San Diego Unit include fishing. '-'ildlife photography. wildlife obser-
vation. environmental education. and environmental interpretation.
~J/4-- -1/3
Upon completion of the San Diego Refuge planning process and prior to
acquiring any lands from willing sellers. the Service \\ill complete
interim preacquisition compatibility determinations for \\'ildlife-
dependent recreational activities that could be allowed to continue until
comprehensive Refuge planning was completed, The interim
compatibility determinations for wildlife-dependent recreational
activities temporarily bridge the time period between the acquisition of
land for a new wildlife refuge and official opening of Refuge lands to
public use. The continuation of wildlife-dependent recreational
activities would also require the determination of the Service's authority
to regulate the use. availability of funds and staff to oversee the
activity. and an analysis of any environmental impacts pursuant to the
National Environmental Policy Act.
Table I. Interim Compatibility Determinations and Interim Uses for the
Otay-Sweetwater Unit of the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge.
Wildlife-Dependent Existing Compatible for Funds and Staff Interim Use
Recreational Activity Activity Interim Period Available to Allowed (II
Manage (I)
Environmental Yes Yes Yes Yes
Education
Environmental Yes Yes Yes Yes
Interpretation
Wildlife Observation Yes Yes Yes Yes
Wildlife Photography Yes Yes Yes Yes
Hunting Yes Yes Yes Yes
Fishing Yes Yes No Yes")
11) During the interim period. as additional funds and staff are
allocated to the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge. compatible wildlife-
dependent recreational opportunities will be opened to the public on
Service lands.
121 Existing fishing activity on Otay Reservoir will continue to be
managed by the respective jurisdictions.
Based on the compatibility determinations. wildlife-
dependent recreational activities (environmental
education. environmental interpretation.
wildlife observation. wildlife photography.
hunting. and fishing) within the Otay-
Sweetwater Unit would be compatible with
the purpose of the San Diego National ,
Wildlife Refuge. The Service anticipates having the II
funds and staff to manage wildlife-dependent uses .
on new land acquisitions.
.:2 ~c..-- ~~
"
. '\':~ ,
. _.~,~, ,.\
,~.' '-0-: ~'l
J,-!. .::J"'~' "
,', ,,; ,....~~,~ .'. \,:
,_...,Jf:;::;f.lO"'.; . .:'
.~ -~~~''-'" . .,' .Ii.'
~"'., -- -.' '~"'->:i;J, " ' , '-'
~'H" ~~.,........,t''':,~_.
In the case of Rancho San Diego and
other newly acquired Refuge lands,
the Service will be developing an
interim plan that will address wildlife-
dependent recreational activities and
other public uses. Certain uses at
Rancho San Diego. such as bird-
watching and nature hikes. have been
allowed by the Refuge Manager based on
availability of Service staff and funds,
The Service is also working with the
County of San Diego on hiking and equestrian trails and an equestrian
facility at Rancho San Diego.
Table 2. Interim Compatibility Determinations and Interim Uses for
the Vernal Pools Unit of the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge,
Wildlife-Dependent Existing Compatible for Funds and Staff Interim Use
Recreational Activity Activity Interim Period A vailable to Allowed (I)
Manage (()
Environmental Yes Yes Yes Yes
Education
Environmental Yes Yes Yes Yes
Interpretation
Wildlife Observation Yes Yes Yes Yes
Wildlife Photography Yes Yes Yes Yes
Hunting Yes Yes Yes Yes
Fishing No No No No
III During the interim period. as additional funds and staff are
allocated to the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge. compatible wildlife-
dependent recreational opportunities will be opened to the public on
Service lands.
Based on the compatibility determinations, wildlife-dependent
recreational activities (environmental education. environmental
interpretation. wildlife observation, wildlife photography. and hunting)
within the Vernal Pools Unit would be compatible with the purpose of
the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge. There is no fishery resource
within vernal pools. The Service anticipates having the funds and staff
to manage wildlife-dependent uses on new land acquisitions. Interim
uses. such as organized nature hikes. may be approved by the Refuge
Manager on a case-by-case basis as funding and staff become
available.
- . ----
;) 1/ ?'..- - '13
A conceptual map depicting potential wildlife-dependent recreational
activities within the Otay-Sweetwater Unit is provided (see figure 5).
The conceptual map shows potential general areas for wildlife
observation and photography and environmental education and
interpretation along trails and wildlife viewing areas/pullouts on
existing County of San Diego roads and seasonal game bird hunting
areas. Hunting would be subject to the California hunting regulations
and local ordinances regarding the discharge of firearms within city
limits. Fishing within Otay Lakes would continue to be under the
jurisdiction of the County of San Diego and California fishing
regulations.
The close proximity of the Otay-Sweetwater Unit to the San Diego
metropolis provides an excellent opportunity for the public to enjoy
wildlife-dependent recreational. educational. and interpretive activities.
Public use opportunities may include walking and
equestrian trails for the purpose of wildlife observation
',' and wildlife photography. The Service will coordinate
. . , .r with the County of San Diego. City of San Diego. City of
_,:.\ \ Chula Vista. local community planning groups. and
landowners to avoid sensitive biological and cultural
resources and to be consistent with regional and
subregional trail corridors.
The concept for public use in the proposed South San
Diego Bay Unit would be an expansion of the existing
programs at the Sweetwater Marsh and Tijuana
Slough National Wildlife Refuges, Public use activities
may include fishing. wildlife photography. wildlife
observation. environmental education and interpretation. and walking
trails. The Service will continue to coordinate with the City of Chula
Vista. City of Imperial Beach. and San Diego Association of
Governments on the proposed Bayshore Bikeway.
Public use in the Vernal Pools Unit may be limited because of the
sensitive nature of the resource and the small size and general
inaccessibility of the pools. However. certain vernal pools that have
access may provide interpretive opportunities. Where the Vernal Pools
Unit overlaps with the Otay-Sweetwater Unit. hunting opportunities
may be present because of the increased land area.
However. certain public uses on lands acquired by the Service would
not be allowed. In order to protect sensitive wildlife areas. certain core
areas within each refuge unit would not be open to the public.
Activities that would result in potentially significant adverse environ-
mental impacts. conflict with the primary purposes of the Refuge. or
conflict with other uses of Refuge lands would not be allowed.
;2)10-- - 1/ ?
Figure 5
Conceptual Wildlife- Dependent Recreational Activities
for the Otay-Sweetwater Unit.
San Diego National Wildlife Refuge
... Potential Wildlife Viewing Sites
Potential Upland Game Bird
Hunting ISeasonal)
f~
,"
Potential Regional Traillink.ages
.;."R,,,o.1
v ~";,,
........'","
2
3
,<:",-
.:::,,>'
Rancho San Diego (1.840 ac.)
Vernal Pools Unit
"
fk~c"
Streams
,
o
4
,
]>
.
~"I" jlJ~~'
... alt'
-..""..-.-':--
Miles
\1c(;IJlI\
\-tOWIl.WI
"<",IIL
1'<-,11-
()
Iflgli"J~ 94
/
"""""'" f
Rn~~
~.,
San ~lillUt'1
\10Ulll;llIl
"
"?y
"0
.f>"'f...
....
,
..,'
-~"..,
."j-
A.q.#
.
.~
.;i'':-
~~
.;.0
"
\#'~
Old"1
'''+~;;''
~o'"
....
/~""
+0'
"I';.,~ .
"
'.,
~
-.
!
Upper 0r8y
R~!eTYOir
"
:(:;,~
.,
..'
,.
~,
-0-__ ~C
Tdt~T"'i'
. vur'l'O'i!,.
..~l}-:.-:::?:::
I
...
\
,
OUlY
MowllalJl
-- --'---=--==---=.-=. ='-'---'-=-=--":=-=-'--"-'-"--ou.~~'~~
.2 t/C~ -1/?
While the stewardship of the ecological resources of the Otay-
Sweetwater. Vernal Pools. and South San Diego Bay units is the
Service's paramount goal. environmental education and interpreti\'e
programs would likely be an important element of the public use
program. The location and size of the Otay-Sweetwater Unit would
offer excellent opportunities for self-guided interpretive walking
trails. "outdoor classrooms" for area schools
and colleges. and teacher , ,~, .;:<{
kh C' . '" '- ~
wor sops. ertam ~. . ,,-' :--.-' - " .
areas of the proposed, ... '\~. \ '.'c "'l,.'~
South San Diego Bay ,~, _~~.
Unit would be suitable \ \, \N., 1'- ' ::;,
for wildlife observation. ,,'. \ 'i,", () .
bird observation '>, ~. 1,1,
blinds. and self- . I
guided walking ",
trails. Interpretive ~~
opportunities for the ~.,
Vernal Pools Unit may
include signs. leaflets. and
self-guided trails. Programs will be conducted on all Units of the
Refuge to enhance public appreciation and understanding of the
Refuge and its resources.
Public use regulations ensure public safety. maintain the quality of the
outdoor experience. and protect natural resources. General public use
regulations are found in Code of Federal Regulations. Title 50.
Subchapter C. Public and other uses that are not generally authorized
on the Refuge may be permitted on a case-by-case basis through a
Special Use Permit. provided these uses are compatible with the Refuge
purposes. staff and funds are available. and environmental compliance
documents are completed. Specific regulations for public use within
the Otay-Sweetwater. Vernal Pools. and South San Diego Bay units
may include. but would not be limited to. the following provisions:
. Public entry is permitted in those areas marked by appropriate
Refuge signs and maps.
. Vehicles are allowed only on designated Refuge roads or trails,
. Parking is prohibited in front of closed gates.
. Public use is allowed between 5:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. No
camping or overnight parking is permitted.
. Possessing or discharging firearms is prohibited except during
established hunting seasons in areas open to hunting by the
Service.
~tj&- ~tJ<7
. Disturbing or collecting any plant or animal is prohibited except
under a special permit.
. No person may search for. disturb. or remove any Native American
artifact or other historical object.
. Directing the rays of any artificial light for the purposes of spotting.
locating. or taking any animal is prohibited. except for approved
management and research projects.
. Entering or remaining on the Refuge while under the inl1uence of
alcohol or other drugs is prohibited.
. Dogs and other pets must be kept under physical control at all
times.
Rights-of-Ways and Easements
Lands for the Refuge would be acquired subject to existing rights-of-
ways and easements. The Service has an application process for
granting new right-of-ways and easements across Service-owned lands.
This process would also be used if holders of existing rights-of-way and
easements want to expand their areas of use of Service lands: or in
most cases. if they want to modity the terms and conditions of their
rights of utilization or access across Service lands.
New rights-of-ways and easements or modifications to existing rights-
of-ways and easements must be compatible with the purpose for which
the Refuge was established.
Law Enforcement
Enforcement of Federal laws (and State of California. County of San
Diego. and cities of San Diego and Chula Vista laws as appropriate) on
the Refuge would be important to safeguard visitors. protect public and
private property. and conserve natural resources. Refuge staff would
include law enforcement personnel. Refuge officers would work with
the local police and sheriff. California Department of Fish and Game.
and Border Patrol to control trespass. illegal immigration. violation of
wildlife laws. and other violations. Boundaries of any lands acquired
by the Service would be posted with Refuge signs at regular intervals.
Boundary signs and fencing would be important tools to control illegal
trespass.
c2;J~ -J-/1
-
e,.;-
n
Facilities Development and Management
Facilities for field offices. maintenance and storage.
education. and visitors may be needed for the Sa;'
Diego Refuge. Depending on availability of buildings.
new facilities may need to be built. Th~ planning and
design ofvisitor facilities would be subject to a public
involvement process. The costs for acquiring or building a
headquarters. visitor contact facility. parking. interpretive trails.
maintenance buildings. offices. and other facilities are not known at
this time.
Fire Management
Wildfires are a great concern within the Otay-Sweetwater and Vernal
Pools units. Coastal sage scrub. chaparral. Tecate cypress. and
grassland habitats are subject to periodic natural and man-induced
wildfires within the Otay-Sweetwater and Vernal Pools units.
Unfortunately. the frequency of wildfires within the southwestern
region of San Diego County. particularly in the vicinity of Otay
Mountain. has increased dramatically in the last year. Wildfires are a
lesser concern for the proposed South San Diego Bay Unit because of
the predominance of wetland and aquatic habitats.
As lands are acquired. the Service would prepare and update a fire
management plan to address initial response. fire crew dispatch.
wildfire suppression. cooperative agreements for firefighting support.
and prescribed burning. Fire management planning would also
include agreements with the California Department of Forestry and
Fire Protection. Cleveland National Forest. and local fire departments
and districts for fire suppression support. The Service would
maintain certain existing roads and trails as fire breaks and fire roads
and would evaluate needs for additional fire management facilities.
Along the interface with urbanized lands. the Service would work with
local fire districts and homeowners on wildfire prevention and weed
abatement.
Fire plays a major role in the succession and maintenance of native
plant communities. such as Tecate cypress forest. coastal sage scrub.
grassland. and chaparral habitats. The Service may use prescribed
burning as a tool to restore wildlife habitats. reduce fuel loads. and
minimize wildfIre hazards. The role and implementation of prescribed
burns in resource management and fuel reduction and compliance
with applicable air quality standards would also be addressed in
detail in the Refuge step-down fire management plan.
c2 tj4-- 52J
Interagency and Public Coordination
The Gtay-Sweetwater and Vernal Pool units encompass and abut lands
of various ownerships and jurisdictions. These two areas include more
than 400 private landowners and contain lands owned by The
Environmental Trust. The Nature Conservancy. and the National Fish
and Wildlife Foundation. The Vernal Pools and Gtay-Sweetwater units
overlap lands under the jurisdiction of the County of San Diego. City of
San Diego. City of Chula Vista. Gtay Water District. Sweetwater
Authority. State of California. and Bureau of Land Management.
Given the large numbers of landowners and multiple jurisdictions.
interagency coordination and public outreach would be important
tools in effectively managing Refuge lands within the Otay-Sweetwater
and Vernal Pools units.
The San Diego Refuge provides a contribution by the Service towards
the implementation of the Multiple Species Conservation Program. As
envisioned. a preserve network would be established within
southwestern San Diego under the Multiple Species Conservation
Program. An interagency cooperative agreement may be developed
that provides for sharing resources and staff among agencies. funding
joint and mutually beneficial projects. and coordinating restoration
and monitoring projects within the Gtay-Sweetwater and Vernal Pool
units and the Multiple Species Conservation Program preserve. Public
lands would be included consistent with a mutually satisfactory
cooperative agreement between the Service and the public agency
landowner. For example. the cooperative agreement would provide the
framework for natural resource agencies to maintain trails. fire roads.
and fences that cross multiple land ownerships. The Service would
seek partnerships with neighboring landowners to meet mutual goals
and objectives whenever possible. Public outreach may include
continuation of planning updates for the San Diego Refuge.
. For the proposed South San Diego Bay Unit. cooperative agreements
with the U.S. Navy. California State Lands Commission. San Diego
Unified Port District. Western Salt Works. and other landowners to
coordinate resource management may be developed. The cooperative
agreements would address Refuge funding. sharing staffs. monitoring
wildlife populations. and law enforcement. For example. cooperative
agreements with the Port District and State Lands Commission may
address enforcing boat speed limits and seasonal closures of portions
of the south San Diego Bay.
) iJcL ~ 5 /
Prepared by
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
911 NE 11th Avenue
Portland. Oregon 97232-4181
503-231-2231
800-662-8933
May 1997
:24-s;2.
The US. Fish and Wildlife Service manages fish hatcheries and
national wildlife refuges throughout the country for the continued
conservation, protection, and enhancement of our fish and wildlife
resources and their habitats for the continuing benefit of people.
~
-
U,S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
RFl1720 May 1997
~
~.'1e ~,s Jeoar~,""ent,1 ~'e !"terror strlellV pronlblts (1IScnmlnallon on me baSIS 01 race. cO'or "1a/lonal Of/girl, age, or ,'1anOlcao ,r an.... olliS feoera!J,.
aS5isr!'C :r;)9,"0'l'15 and 3CIIV,rJeS Aaalf!or:aUv, olscnmma/!on Of" me baSIS of jex 1$ stJ1CaV ,m::nlbl/ed many leOeral!y asS/SleD eouca/Jon J:)rogram Of actIVity
01 me Deoar7mt!r:I~C' f:.;rr'''er''lor~aTlor: regaromg ,ne Department ollnter,'IJ's ,~or:Clscr,r"!lra!lon oolicles or If you believe you ,"ave Deen ::USCr:mmarea
agams! ,n :,~IS ar'Jgram cr acflvrty Olease cantae: Director. Office for E:JlJal OOOOftL'':IIY Jepanmenr 01 :he IntenDr, Wastlmgrofl DC 20240