"i! .

f1EPAPTf'T'!T OF
1='1.
E, lOA:.
:-0: 80are of Transportation .J';
Thursday, August 13, 1981
SU8JFCT: S::T DATE FOR pueuc ATIOP.! OF RES­
8IDDEP, FOP en :=PP'CfJISF: P' SOUTH
'TP.n,"_
REFERr::r-C
r
: CF 73-5672, S:, S2

1. That the 8o?rd receive the report,
2. That the three t'idders and any interestl'lG ni'lrty he riven two

Jeeks to
revi e'/1 the Qepart!7!ent IS reDort anc to suhr
i
t ':'r'i tten CClT1"r.1ents to the
lieDartf'1ent. T:-'e calT'!T'ents srould f)e suhrnitteri to f'eoartrnent in Room
1600 City 11 by 27, 1
0Q
l.
3. That the Poard set Septe!T'ber 0. l
oP
1, the date for the heer­
irg on this at which tre "en3rt
m
ent its re­
Dort and its reoly to any wri ter corrrrents and the
anc any interested oarty present any further
:
en February 25, 1980, a notice of sale fer 3. CC 1e tele';ision franchise for
the South Central area of the City was official y oublished. r copy of
notice of sale is included in A028ndix of the attacherl evalua on report.
e official notice the instructions to cidrlers and terms
and conditions of the franchise were in the Los Anoeles
Journal. Advertisements solicitino inouiries reaardino the sale of the
franchise "Iere published nationally in 'the 1,Iall and the
trade TVe.
In response to the notice of sale, three b at rity 's
on foril 30, sUhmitted h
The Council received the and referred them to the Poard of TransQortation
for reDort anrl to the '.'Inri Economic
Develooment Committee.
On July 3, 1980, the repartment sent a letter to a11 bi1ders reouesting
adrlitioral information. ;-he letter rer:.Ieste:: recarriino the
hiddina companies' existinc and te1e0ision holdinas.
rates arA of the avail ilitv of fundina
cons truct the sys ten',. ire c0tnD2.ni es '.':p.re asked to COGO 1ete "sever;:'. I f(')rr.,s
dealinc v:ith svste\!1 rrojected reverue arc orojectec eXDGnSeS,

-':'­
caoital exoenditures and rate sources and uses of funds,
cable holdings and anticipRted channel alloc?tion. The reouesterl
was modified sli0htly and the time to was extenrled to a later date
in a subseauent letter dated July 29, 19
Rr
. (See Aonendix C-2 of the attached
evaluation report) ..
second letter was sent to all bidders or March 25, 1991, reauestinc
further clarification of the That letter reQuested a nao the
location of their iJ1ant facilities c.nrl the co:rpletion of t###BOT_TEXT###quot;0 ferrI'S ,.;eaiina
with nayroll and studio eouioment costs. (See C-l of
evaluation report).
The Deoartment1s reoort represents a reterMination of the hiqhest responsible
bidder· based upon the evaiuation of the bidders
l
proposals, the information
supplied by the in response to the Cepartrent1s reouests fer clarifica­
tion and into the bidders' capabilities, oersonnel, and operating
experience; all in accordance the Notice of Sale.
the bidders shouid cive special attention to DecommendctiO!1 '10. il of
the Evaluation Reoort which sets a 27 month constrJlction schedule and allows
12 months for preoaration by grantee ard orocessing the utility comnanies
of pole and excavation ;JerITlit aoplications. The bidders are encouraaed to
obtain as firr: a commit:ment as possible from the utility companies of the
time needed to process the pole aonlications and inclurle tre· cOrr1f'1itments in
their estimate of the aporooriate overall construction schedule. The infor­
mation should be submitted in the written reolies due in two weeks. If a
conference is held with the util ity cemoan; es, the r:'elJartr:ent sroul d be
invited to attend.
The bidcers should be allm'led two
/ee
1
<s to review sl.Irrnit in Vtritinq any
comments on the 'epart:nent I s report. The lJepartment then
Ioul d have at
1east tl.,!O v/eeks to prepare its reSDonse to the I:'i dders I comments. Schedlll i ng
the public hearinc fer 10. 1981, would accomodate this schedule.
Submitted,

E. Division (ngineer
Rates and Franchise
l1PPROVED:
lf11ttd
/ R/f-lCH:1V {/
Genera1
PH: SJO: pt.'}
Enclosure
c;f:"P0P.T
(iF
E4
August 13, 1981
Iv'
T'i.
Board of Transnortation Commissioners
Thursday, September 10, 1981
SUB.JEcr: EV,l\LUATION OF I-IIGf-!EST gID!JER
FOR THE (,tI.BLJ:" SOL'TfJ LOS
PEFEPEIIICE: CF 78-5672, Sl, S2
J:" Co""'r1 F: TI a :
The Deoartment recommends that the Boare:
1. Find that Center City Cablevision, Ync. is responsible
bid1er:
2. Recommend to the I ndustry and Econor!1i'c ['eve1ooment Commi ttee of the
Council that the cable television franchise in South Central Los Angeles
be awarded to Center City Cablevision, Inc;
3. Recommend that the City r.ouncil modify Section 2.), of Grant,
of the franchise terms and conditions, to require that the effective
date of the be contingent upon the Department's and City
Attorney's acceptance of the Grantee's documentation that sufficient
funds to construct, equip and operate the proposed system are available;
4. That the construction schedule, as oroposed by Center City Cablevision,
Inc., be amenced. to reouire the Company to file a11 necessary apolica­
tions for pole attachments and excavation permits six months of
the effective date of the franchise: and that six additional months
be allowed for the utility companies to process the applications an0
that Center City Cablevision. Inc. shall complete construction of the
system 27 months after the effective date of the franchise or as reason­
ably extended by the Roard:
5. Pecommenc that the rity Council modify Section 3.2, Limitation Unon
Grant, of the franchise terms anrl conditions to the sale of
the franchise or any portion of the ownershi2 without the express consent
of the City by ordinance:
6. Recommend that the Ci:y Council further morl fy Secti on 1.2 of the fran­
chi se terns and conditi ons to recui re that he crantee acknm'll edce anc
acree to the nrovisions that the franchisels value for the af
setti ng rates' cannot be capi ta i i zed for an arrount (1reater than the
capital actually invested:
-2­
7. Recoml'1end that the City Council modify Section .1.6, Fquipment and Ser­
vice Requirements, of the franchise terms and conditions by adding the
following subsection (d) (3) to fer the joint use of the
durin(j construction \Ie.. ith the municipal services functions the Department:
(3) resnect to local covernment services, the Grantee, shall
provide and install in a common trench 'iith Grantee's con­
duit, municipal services conduit as soecifierl hy the Gepart­
ment of TransDortation. The additional costs to Grantee for
costs of the conduit, pull boxes. vaults, other materials
and additional construction work other than the cost of the
trenching itself may be decucterl from subsequent franchise
paynents to the City. Grantee shall notify the nepartment
of Transportation 90 days rrior to construction and all de­
ductions are subject to Qepartment approval.
8. Recommend that the City Council further modify 'ection 4.6 by addinq
subsection (b) (7) to provide at the ootion of the suhscriher. for program
security or lock-out devices at no additional charae to the subscriber.
f)ISCUSS rot::
The three bidders, Center City Cablevision, Inc. (CCr,I), Community Telecom­
munications, Inc. (eTI) and South Central CATV Associates (SCCA) responded
to the of Sale for a cable television franchise in the South
area of the City by submitting their bid good faith deposit,
thei r commi tment to <:;5,000 to the Ci ty Treasurer \led thi r. 20 days after
the Dublication of the franchise ordinance and their documents.
The location of the South Central franchise area is shown on the attached
map.
In determining the highest responsible bidder, the considered
each bidder's offer to provide the benefits referred to in the of Sa1e
as Biddable Items, the bidder's ability to perfonn and the bidder's technical
oroposal. The Department's evaluation process is outlined in Appendix A
of this report. A summary of the results of this evaluation is shown on
Table A.
The to award the franchise to eccr is based on
the overall rankina of eeCl in the three cateoories of evaluation. In the
first category - Biddable Items - CCCI's bid ranked highest or tied for
highest in five of the eight biddable items, eTr also ranker. highest or tied
in five of eiaht items. CCCI's bid also tied for hiahest with eTI in the
Technical Proposal evaluation. The Deoartment has determined that CCel's ranking
of first in the cate?ory - Capacity to Perform - alora with its highest or
tied for highest in the other two categories its rid the highest
the three bids received.
-3­
It is acknowledged that both cecI and crr have presented proposals which would _
provide a state of the art quality system for the residents of the South Central
area of the City. Both offer a minimum of 52 channels of service to the sub­
scriber and an additional two way active cable to serve the area's institutions.
Both have offered multiple access studio facilities which are well equipped with
color TV cameras and editing equipment, and both have proposed to carry multiple
pay television channels and programs delivered by satellite.
The major difference between the bids submitted by CeeI and CTI is in the area
of the companies' experience as a cable television operator and the presenta­
tion by the bidders of satisfactory evidence of funding. CCCI, as a subsidary
of the nation's largest multiple system operator demonstrated a superior ability
to finance the construction and operation of this franchise area.
It is noted that only the quantifiable technical information submitted has
been considered in this evaluation. The benefits or effects of ethnic minority
ownership
Jere deemed beyond the scope of this analysis.
The City's Master Plan for cable communication includes a recommendation re­
lative to ethnic minority ownership. Page 72 of the plan states:
"A policy that sets aside areas for minority ownership may alter desired
criteria for selecting districts in favor for the ownership
objective. The possibility of awarding experimental franchises in
such minority areas must be considered."
The Master Plan also states on Page 75 regarding System Configuration:
"It is recommended that Franchise Districts be designated to enhance the
development of Community consciousness through the delivery of communica­
tion services that are of specific interest to the community, and that
these communities be selected so as to reflect community planning districts,
political districts, ethnic and demographic commonalties and interests.
Further, the Franchise Districts should provide for effective regulation
and enforcement by the City ... It is recommended tha t mi nority owner­
ship be encouraged in appropriate areas."
[·Jith regard to Recommendati on Numbers 3 and 4, the DepiJrtr:1ent suggests that
the Board recommend to the Council that the franchise ordinance contain, in
addition to the provisions published in the of Sale and the items
proposed by the successful bidder, tV/o additional orovisions.
The first provision requires that the City Council modify Section 2.3 of the
franchise to require that the franchise not become effective until reasonable
availability of sufficdent equity and/or debt financing, acceptable to the
Department and the City Attorney, has been provided. This provision is dis­
cussed furhter in Appendix A page A.16. ihe following language is suggested:
Section 2.3 Duration of Grant. This franchise shall be effective on the
31st day after the publication of the enacting ordinance, provided the
Grantee has filed
Jith the ,Cet:Jartment and the City Attorney, v.;ithin 20
_:1_
days after such of publication, a written instrument. to
Counci1. acceotinc and anreeina to comrly with all
of the provisions
In the Grantee shall. within 20 after date of publica­
tion, provi documentation in a form to the and
City /i,ttorney, on the availariiity of sufficient fundinCl. to construct.
eouip, and operate the proposed carle television system until the system
beccmes self sunporting. The shall not until
the has the has teen
and is acceptable.
The second nrOV1Slon 'dould clarify tre I:idder's proDosa1 to construct the
A
.
system vIithin six months frOfll receiDt of all reauire
ri
cermits and licenses .
The Deoartment--r-ecommends including a provision th;;\t the r;rani:ee shall submit
ali necessary applications with the utility coml)anies, the repartment of
Put-1ic
orks anel any other agency reauirinn specific c:earancAs for [')ole
attachment, excavation, or other reouired oermits six months of the
effective date of the The nepartment further recommenrls that the
construction schedule also allow six months the utilities to process the
applications and that the entire franchise area be constructed within ?7
of the effective of the franchise, or as
by the Board.
Recolrmenriati on "umbers 5 a'lri r: address the C'; ty Counci 1's ... revi OilS ly expressed
concern that no channe in ewnershio occur \vithout the prior aoorovai of the
City by ordinance. /1.1so acdressed is the De'Jartment's concern that cacle
television remain a oublic service as such not to snecula­
+" .
,0
h +
.,erm lnves,ors.
t
ca
bl
e
t' "" h 1rl
.

,·e .,ve oall1.s
t

".
eleV1Slon aran,ee
t
S,Oll
expected to orovide service on a 10no basis as traditional public
utilities have over the years. 3idders should be from
I'lith an ultimate intention ,)f sellin9 the franchise. realizing a sh0rt tem
profit from the sale and increasinG rates fer present anrl future subscribers.
To prevent this Dessibility the neoartment sugaests that Sectinn 3.2 (rl) and
(e) of the franchise and conditions renumbered to (f) and (9) and
that the fo110winq para9raohs be inserted:
(d) The Grantee shall not sell. exchanae, or release,
or permit the sale, transfer, excharce or release, of any oart
of the ownership of the Grantee without prior consent of the
City expressed by ordinance, an<i then only unrler sucr conditions
as r.ay be orescrited.
(e) The Grantee is placed on notice and by the acceotance of this
francrise acrees that the grante
ri
hereunder are for tr.e
non-exclusive use of the City nroperty ::Inc easements for tre
specific use by the Grantee for the JurDoses stated in Section
2. The Grantee's riahts to ooerate does not consti+ute a class
of oroperty which be or as an eler:\ent
of value for rate settin0 in ar in excess Of
that actually investsd by the Grantee.
,..
-:)­
Numcer 7 rrovires that the r::nntee reouired to install,
in a common trench, municioal services conduit and aopurtenances as soecified
by is Department. fosts for such to be reimbursed to the by the
City.
?ecommendation vlil1 reouire tre grantee +:0 of"Fer, ootionally at the 0
reouest of the sur-scriber. a prc9ram security or lock-ollt device at no adrlitional
charne to the subscriber. This provision is identical to the one imposerl on
(:wantee of the Soyl e l-1ei 0hts fn,nchi se by the ?oard on ,July If. 19°1.
5ubmi tted,

E. CUDE,
Pates and Franchise
P,PPROVED:

r::enera1
PH: S\l r: :
Enclosure
TP.RLF
Y OF PP0
P
C'SJlL
(See x rxolanation of Points)
, , ' ,
OF
Center
rablevision,
Items (40 Doints maximum)
! of Pub1i C Access Channels 5
'2 of and Location of Public
Jlccess Stucios
t:.
y Public Access Sturlio Ecu;pment
,:1
,. of GovernfT'ent Jkcess
Channels 4
; Loca 1 Prograrnmi n9 5
(, System Capacity 5
1 Schedul e of Constructi on
i0ther Consideration of Putlic
8enefit 5
81adable Items Total 37
to Perform (15 poi nts maximum)
1 Pbility to Finance ..
h
Iv Past Performance
5
{I Personnel
:::
r-
Performance Total
15
Technical Proposal (10 points maxirrum)
r
v
SysteJ11 Design
:::::
13 Sen'; ce Procedure
5
10
rom,muri ty South
. 1eCOI'1J11U ni - i,fTV
cations, Inc. Associates
t!

"
5 :i
5 3
r:;
5
r;:
,J 3
4
1.
t. 4.
5
17 "30
] 5
2
?
d d
12
9
r..:
4 ..;
l()
Q
r
C00NTV

G?4NA;;JA "lLI..S
%·'.· ..
'= -.:.#
;"".-, '. .1Jl
".;. (;RESi.€NT"
.1,..,..e-io.:.A
3

;;.:: 'Z1.$iiLilih

3AS,ADE,".IA



"'L."U.M8;:!A
11

li.\-fll(
,.,'SA0£5 V
'= ..: .. A&\-,.
' -
'"
J ... f. ... ..'b
Ii
\JIST

"'"
HOWARD FINN
2 JOEL WACHS
3 'JOY PICUS
4 JOHN FERRARO
5 ZEV YAROSLAVSKY
6 'PAT RUSSELL
7 EFINANI BERNARDI
8 ROBERT C, FARRELL
9 GILBERT W, LINDSAY
10 DAVID S, CUNNINGHAM
11 MARVIN BRAUDE
12 HAL BERNSON
13 'PEGGY STEVENSON
14 ARTHUR K, SNYDER
15 "JOAN MILKE FLORES

:OTAt. $Qf.jAAE MILE'S. ·\.6old?932 lAS OF ,uk '91
COUNCIL DISTRICTS
CITY OF LOS ANGELES
r
ORO, NO, 143900 SEPT, 1972
BUREAU OF ENGINEERING
::roNALD C. TiLLMAN C:iY ENGINEER
STREET OPENING 'NIDENING DIVISION
ART OENNIS DIVISiON ENGINEER
ORO, NO. 1!l2.493 JUNE 1919
(AMENDS ORO. 143.900)
/ ,!/ U4A".!"IO...,
-4UNTp'ilj.-ar.. ;JARJ(
""'" . , ..... .' Certrai
..::..",.,,,.. ; J-.:(,;."M/;Z;',7{ It 4f .J Franchi se ,llrpa
j ) - ...
CArE
¥NWOO!)
,;QMPT0t4
':'ORR4HC£
... ;:NG !!£";'C!"'
... q.LS
I
TABLE OF
APPENDIX A
Evaluation of Bidders for the Cable Television
Franchise in South Central Los Angeles A.1
Summary of Biddable Items A.4
Discussion of Biddable Items and Assignment of Points
1. Number of Public Aceess Channels .. A.7
2. Number and Location of Public Access .L\.8
3. Public Access Studio Equipment ... Jl.. 9
4. Number of Government Access Channels A.10
5. Local p, .11
6. System Capac; ty . .... . Jl.. l1
7. Schedule of Construction .. . A.13
3. Other Consideration of Public Benefit A .13
Summary of Points Jl.ssigned for Biddable Items Jl.• 15
Discussion of Capacity to Perform and Assignment of Points
1. ity to Finance ....................... .
;11.16
a. FinanciRI Responsibility of Center City r:ablevision, Inc. A.17
b. Financial Responsibility of Community Telecommunications, Inc. J\ .17
c. Fi nanci a 1 Responsi bil ity of South Centra 1 CJ1.TV Associ ates A.19
d. Comoarision of Responsibility and Assignment of Points A.20
2. Past Performance
a. Past Performance by Center City Cabievision, Inc.
,ll,.21
b. Past PerfOn1ance by Community Telecommunications, Inc. A.21
c. Past Performance by South Central CATV Associates
A.22
d. Compa ri son of Pas t Performance . . . . . . . . . A.23
e. Discussion of Past Performance and Assignment of Points A.23
3. Pers onne 1
1\ ?Ll
a. Personnel of Center City Cablevision, Inc.
r,. '- ,
b. Personnel of Community Telecommunications, Inc.
A..25
c. Personnel of South Central CATV Associates
A.27
d. of Personnel ........ .
A.30
e. Discussion of ?ersonnel and Assiqnment of Points
A.30
Summary of Poi nts Bi dders Capaci ty to Perform
fl.. 32
Discussion of Technical Proposal and Assignment of Points
1. System Design
a. System Design Center City Cablevision, Inc.
P.. 33
b. System Design Community Telecomwunications, Inc.
Jl,.34
c. System Design South Central CATV Associates
.. 35
d. Campa ri son of Sys tem Des i gn ..' .
fl.. 36
e. Summary of System Design Features
ft.. 38
f. Discussion of System Desiqn and /Issignment of Points {l" 3 9
2 • Service Prccedure
a.
Service Procedure by Center City Cablevision, Inc.
P,.40
b. Service Procedure by Community Telecommunications, Inc.
A.41
c.
Servi ce Procedure by South Central Cft.TV Associ ates
fl..42
d. Comparison of Service Procedure
A.42
e.
Discussion of Service Procedure and Assignment of Points
. A.43
A.1.:1 , ,
Summary of Points P,