(A) This section is applicable to any licensed but otherwise authorized MCS provider, and to any MCS provider who has had its franchise ruled unconstitutional, unenforceable, or invalid. For all franchised MCS providers the provisions concerning franchise fees shall be applicable.
(B) Where not specifically prohibited by federal or state law, and as an alternative to the imposition of a franchise fee as set forth in this chapter, the Council/franchising authority may impose, extract, and collect a charge from an affected MCS provider for the use by such provider of the streets, rights-of-way, easements, and public ways of the city.
(C) The alternative user charge shall be based on the following mathematical mode:
(1) Determine the present value of all public streets, rights-of-way, easements, and public ways of the city in which are located multi-channel system facilities and equipment of the affected MCS provider;
(2) Take the average percentage increase in land appraisals within the city, as determined by the Property Appraiser for the city, for the five preceding years;
(3) Take the average percentage increase for the five preceding years and use it to determine the dollar amount of property value increase for the remaining term of the franchise (if no franchise applicable, then use five years);
(4) Add the present value to the dollar amount of property value increase for the remaining term of the franchise (if no franchise applicable then use five years);
(5) Divide the adjusted value of the remaining number of years on the term of the franchise (if no franchise applicable then use five years);
(6) Multiply that figure by 5% to arrive at the annual user charge that is to be collected from the affected MCS provider.
(7) For purposes of illustration only, the formula reads as follows:
present value = dollar amount of property plus increase for remaining term of the franchise (based on average percentage increase of land appraisals for past years of franchise term) divide the adjusted value by the remaining years on the term of the franchise, multiply that figure by 5% = (equals) the annual alternative user charge.
(D) The Council/franchising authority adopts such an alternative user charge in order to receive fair compensation for the affected MCS provider's use of the public streets and public ways if such compensation cannot be obtained by imposing a flat percentage fee on such MCS provider's annual gross revenues. However, an affected MCS provider may agree to an alternative charge that is based on a flat percentage of gross revenues, as long as that charge does not exceed 5% of an affected MCS provider's annual gross revenues.
(E) Also, recognizing that an alternative user charge may affect a franchised MCS provider, please note that the franchise agreement may contain express language which details a different method or manner to handle a situation in which franchise fees as historically calculated (as a percentage of gross revenues) are ruled unconstitutional or unenforceable, in order to protect and preserve the city's source of revenue and compensation for the use of the public rights-of-way.
(F) It is expressly understood that a franchise fee and an alternative user charge will not be imposed on the same MCS provider at the same time, for the same period.
(G) An affected MCS provider shall at no time be charged or obligated to pay an alternative user charge that exceeds 5% of such provider's gross revenues (as defined by this chapter) for any particular reporting period. In the event that the alternative user charge does exceed 5% of gross revenues, then such alternative user charge shall be reduced to reflect an amount not greater than the 5% cap.
(H) An affected MCS provider shall pay 25% of the alternative user charge at the end of every three months.
(Ord. 4-1994-20, passed 4-12-94)