<PAGE> 1
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-K
[x] ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(D) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 (FEE REQUIRED)
For the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 1995
OR
[ ] TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(D) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 (NO FEE REQUIRED)
For the transition period from to
----- ------
Commission File Number: 0-14508
ENSTAR INCOME PROGRAM II-1, L.P.
--------------------------------
(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)
GEORGIA 58-1628877
- ------------------------------------------------ -----------------------
(State or other jurisdiction of I.R.S. Employer
incorporation or organization) Identification Number)
10900 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD - 15TH FLOOR
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90024
- ------------------------------------------------ -----------------------
(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)
Registrant's telephone number, including area code: (310) 824-9990
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12 (b) of the Act: NONE
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12 (g) of the Act:
Name of each exchange
Title of each Class on which registered
------------------- -------------------
UNITS OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP INTEREST NONE
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant (1) has filed all reports
required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the
Registrant was required to file such reports) and (2) has been subject to such
filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes X No
--- ---
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to
Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained,
to the best of Registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information
statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any
amendment to this Form 10-K. [X]
State the aggregate market value of the voting equity securities held
by non-affiliates of the registrant - all of the registrant's 29,936 units of
limited partnership interests, its only class of equity securities, are held by
non-affiliates. There is no public trading market for the units, and transfers
of units are subject to certain restrictions; accordingly, the registrant is
unable to state the market value of the units held by non-affiliates.
The Exhibit Index is located at Page E-1.
<PAGE> 2
PART I
ITEM 1. BUSINESS
INTRODUCTION
Enstar Income Program II-1, L.P., a Georgia limited partnership
(the "Partnership"), is engaged in the ownership, operation and development,
and, when appropriate, sale or other disposition, of cable television systems in
small to medium-sized communities. The Partnership was formed on July 3, 1984.
The general partners of the Partnership are Enstar Communications Corporation, a
Georgia corporation (the "Corporate General Partner"), and Robert T. Graff, Jr.
(the "Individual General Partner" and, together with the Corporate General
Partner, the "General Partners"). On September 30, 1988, ownership of the
Corporate General Partner was acquired by Falcon Cablevision, a California
limited partnership that has been engaged in the ownership and operation of
cable television systems since 1984 ("Falcon Cablevision"). Until March 1993,
the general partner of the general partner of Falcon Cablevision was Falcon
Holding Group, Inc., a California corporation ("FHGI") which provided certain
management services to the Partnership. On March 29, 1993, a new entity, Falcon
Holding Group, L.P. ("FHGLP"), was organized to effect the consolidation of the
ownership of various cable television businesses (including that of Falcon
Cablevision) that were previously under the common management of FHGI. The
management of FHGLP is substantially the same as that of FHGI. See Item 13.,
"Certain Relationships and Related Transactions." The Corporate General Partner,
FHGLP and affiliated companies are responsible for the day to day management of
the Partnership and its operations. See "Employees" below.
A cable television system receives television, radio and data
signals at the system's "headend" site by means of over-the-air antennas,
microwave relay systems and satellite earth stations. These signals are then
modulated, amplified and distributed, primarily through coaxial and fiber optic
distribution systems, to customers who pay a fee for this service. Cable
television systems may also originate their own television programming and other
information services for distribution through the system. Cable television
systems generally are constructed and operated pursuant to non-exclusive
franchises or similar licenses granted by local governmental authorities for a
specified term of years.
The Partnership's cable television systems, (the "systems")
offer customers various levels (or "tiers") of cable services consisting of
broadcast television signals of local network, independent and educational
stations, a limited number of television signals from so-called "super stations"
originating from distant cities (such as WTBS, WGN and WOR), various
satellite-delivered, non-broadcast channels (such as Cable News Network ("CNN"),
MTV: Music Television ("MTV"), the USA Network ("USA"), ESPN and Turner Network
Television ("TNT"), programming originated locally by the cable television
system (such as public, governmental and educational access programs) and
informational displays featuring news, weather, stock market and financial
reports and public service announcements. A number of the satellite services are
also offered in certain packages. For an extra monthly charge, the systems also
offer "premium" television services to their customers. These services (such as
Home Box Office ("HBO"), Showtime, The Disney Channel and selected regional
sports networks) are satellite channels that consist principally of feature
films, live sporting events, concerts and other special entertainment features,
usually presented without commercial interruption. See "Legislation and
Regulation."
A customer generally pays an initial installation charge and
fixed monthly fees for basic, expanded basic, other tiers of satellite services
and premium programming services. Such monthly service fees constitute the
primary source of revenues for the systems. In addition to customer revenues,
the systems receive revenue from the sale of available advertising spots on
advertiser-supported programming. The systems also offer to their customers home
shopping services, which pay the systems a share of
2
<PAGE> 3
revenues from sales of products in the systems' service areas, in addition to
paying the systems a separate fee in return for carrying their shopping service.
The Partnership owns and operates two cable television systems that
provide service to customers in the cities of Taylorville, Litchfield and
Gillespie, Illinois and portions of unincorporated Christian County, Illinois.
As of December 31, 1995, the Partnership served approximately 6,800 homes
subscribing to cable service in these areas. The Partnership does not expect to
make any additional material acquisitions during the remaining term of the
Partnership.
FHGLP receives a management fee and reimbursement of expenses from the
Corporate General Partner for managing the Partnership's cable television
operations. See Item 11., "Executive Compensation."
The Chief Executive Officer of FHGLP is Marc B. Nathanson. Mr.
Nathanson has managed FHGLP or its predecessors since 1975. Mr. Nathanson is a
veteran of more than 26 years in the cable industry and, prior to forming
FHGLP's predecessors, held several key executive positions with some of the
nation's largest cable television companies. The principal executive offices of
the Partnership, the General Partner and FHGLP are located at 10900 Wilshire
Boulevard, 15th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90024, and their telephone number
is (310) 824-9990. See Item 10., "Directors and Executive Officers of the
Registrant."
BUSINESS STRATEGY
Historically, the Partnership has followed a systematic approach to
acquiring, operating and developing cable television systems based on the
primary goal of increasing operating cash flow while maintaining the quality of
services offered by its cable television systems. The Partnership's business
strategy has focused on serving small to medium-sized communities. The
Partnership believes that its cable television systems generally involve less
risk of increased competition than systems in large urban cities. In the
Partnership's market, consumers have access to only a limited number of
over-the-air broadcast television signals. In addition, this market typically
offers fewer competing entertainment alternatives than large cities. As a
result, the Partnership's cable television systems generally have a higher basic
penetration rate (the number of homes subscribing to cable service as a
percentage of homes passed by cable) with a more stable customer base than
systems in large cities. Nonetheless, the Partnership believes that all cable
operators will face increased competition in the future from alternative
providers of multi-channel video programming services. See "Competition."
On March 30, 1994, the Federal Communications Commission (the "FCC")
adopted significant amendments to its rules implementing certain provisions of
the 1992 Cable Act. The Partnership believes that compliance with these amended
rules has had a negative impact on the Partnership's revenues and cash flow.
These rules are subject to further amendment to give effect to the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the "1996 Telecom Act"). The 1996 Telecom Act is
expected to have a significant affect on all participants in the
telecommunications industry, including the Partnership. See "Legislation and
Regulation" and Item 7., "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operations."
Clustering
The Partnership has sought to acquire cable television systems in
communities that are proximate to other owned or affiliated systems in order to
achieve the economies of scale and operating efficiencies associated with
regional "clusters" of systems. The Partnership believes clustering can reduce
marketing and personnel costs and can also reduce capital expenditures in cases
where cable service can be delivered to a number of systems within a single
region through a central headend reception facility.
3
<PAGE> 4
Capital Expenditures
As noted in "Technological Developments," the Partnership's systems
have no available channel capacity with which to add new channels or to provide
pay-per-view offerings to customers. As a result, significant amounts of capital
for future upgrades will be required in order to increase available channel
capacity, improve quality of service and facilitate the marketing of additional
new services such as advertising, pay-per-view, new unregulated tiers of
satellite-delivered services and home shopping, so that the system remains
competitive within the industry.
The Partnership's management has selected a technical standard that
mandates a 750 MHz fiber to the feeder architecture for the majority of all its
systems that are to be rebuilt. A system built to a 750 MHz standard can provide
approximately 95 channels of analog service. Such a system will also permit the
introduction of high speed data transmission and telephony services in the
future after incurring incremental capital expenditures related to these
services.
The Partnership has planned expenditures of approximately $2,463,000 in
1996 for the rebuild and upgrade of its existing cable plant. The Partnership's
future capital expenditure plans are, however, all subject to the availability
of adequate capital on terms satisfactory to the Partnership, of which there can
be no assurance. As discussed in prior reports, the Partnership postponed the
rebuild of its cable system that was planned for 1993 and 1994 because of the
uncertainty related to implementation of the 1992 Cable Act and the negative
impact thereof on the Partnership's business and access to capital. As a result,
the Partnership's systems will be significantly less technically advanced than
had been expected prior to the implementation of re-regulation. The Partnership
believes that the delays in upgrading its systems will, under present market
conditions, most likely have an adverse effect on the value of those systems
compared to systems that have been rebuilt to a higher technical standard. See
"Legislation and Regulation" and Item 7., "Management's Discussion and Analysis
of Financial Condition and Results of Operations - Liquidity and Capital
Resources."
Decentralized Management
The Corporate General Partner manages the Partnership's systems on a
decentralized basis. The Corporate General Partner believes that its
decentralized management structure, by enhancing management presence at the
system level, increases its sensitivity to the needs of its customers, enhances
the effectiveness of its customer service efforts, eliminates the need for
maintaining a large centralized corporate staff and facilitates the maintenance
of good relations with local governmental authorities.
Marketing
The Partnership has made substantial changes in the way in which it
packages and sells its services and equipment in the course of its
implementation of the FCC's rate regulations promulgated under the 1992 Cable
Act. Historically, the Partnership had offered four programming packages in its
upgraded addressable systems. These packages combined services at a lower rate
than the aggregate rates for such services purchased individually on an "a la
carte" basis. The new rules require that charges for cable-related equipment
(e.g., converter boxes and remote control devices) and installation services be
unbundled from the provision of cable service and based upon actual costs plus a
reasonable profit. On November 10, 1994, the FCC announced the adoption of
further significant amendments to its rules. One amendment allows cable
operators to create new tiers of program services which the FCC has chosen to
exclude from rate regulation, so long as the programming is new to the system.
In addition, the FCC decided that discounted packages of non-premium "new
product tier" services will be subject to rate regulation in the future.
However, in applying this new policy to new product tier packages such as those
already offered by the Partnership and numerous other cable operators, the FCC
decided that where only a few services were moved from regulated tiers to the
new product tier package, the package will be treated as if it were a tier
4
<PAGE> 5
of new program services as discussed above. Substantially all of the new product
tier packages offered by the Partnership have received this desirable treatment.
These amendments to the FCC's rules have allowed the Partnership to resume its
core marketing strategy and reintroduce programmed service packaging. As a
result, in addition to the basic service package, customers in substantially all
of the Systems may purchase an expanded basic service, additional unregulated
packages of satellite-delivered services and premium services on either an a la
carte or a discounted packaged basis. See "Legislation and Regulation."
The Partnership has employed a variety of targeted marketing techniques
to attract new customers by focusing on delivering value, choice, convenience
and quality. The Partnership employs direct mail, radio and local newspaper
advertising, telemarketing and door-to-door selling utilizing demographic
"cluster codes" to target specific messages to target audiences. In certain
systems, the Partnership offers discounts to customers who purchase premium
services on a limited trial basis in order to encourage a higher level of
service subscription. The Partnership also has a coordinated strategy for
retaining customers that includes televised retention advertising to reinforce
the initial decision to subscribe and encourage customers to purchase higher
service levels.
Customer Service and Community Relations
The Partnership places a strong emphasis on customer service and
community relations and believes that success in these areas is critical to its
business. The Partnership has developed and implemented a wide range of monthly
internal training programs for its employees, including its regional managers,
that focus on the Partnership's operations and employee interaction with
customers. The effectiveness of the Partnership's training program as it relates
to the employees' interaction with customers is monitored on an on-going basis,
and a portion of the regional manager's compensation is tied to achieving
customer service targets. The Partnership conducts an extensive customer survey
on an annual basis and uses the information in its efforts to enhance service
and better address the needs of its customers. In addition, the Partnership is
participating in the industry's recently announced Customer Service Initiative
which emphasizes an on-time guarantee program for service and installation
appointments. The Partnership's corporate executives and regional manager lead
the Partnership's involvement in a number of programs benefiting the communities
the Partnership serves, including, among others, Cable in the Classroom, Drug
Awareness, Holiday Toy Drive and the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. Cable in the
Classroom is the cable television industry's public service initiative to enrich
education through the use of commercial-free cable programming. In addition, a
monthly publication, Cable in the Classroom magazine provides educational
program listings by curriculum area, as well as feature articles on how teachers
across the country use the programs.
5
<PAGE> 6
DESCRIPTION OF THE PARTNERSHIP'S SYSTEMS
The table below sets forth certain operating statistics for the
Partnership's cable systems as of December 31, 1995.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Average
Monthly
Revenue
Homes Per Home
Subscribing Premium Subscribing
Homes to Cable Basic Service Premium to Cable
System Passed(1) Service Penetration(2) Units(3) Penetration(4) Service(5) Subscribers(6)
- ------ ------- ------- ------------ ------ ------------ -------- ------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C>
Taylorville, IL 10,680 6,784 63.5% 2,111 31.1% $31.68 9,218
</TABLE>
- --------
(1) Homes passed refers to estimates by the Partnership of the
approximate number of dwelling units in a particular community that can be
connected to the distribution system without any further extension of principal
transmission lines. Such estimates are based upon a variety of sources,
including billing records, house counts, city directories and other local
sources.
(2) Homes subscribing to cable service as a percentage of homes passed
by cable.
(3) Premium service units include only single channel services offered
for a monthly fee per channel and do not include tiers of channels offered as a
package for a single monthly fee.
(4) Premium service units as a percentage of homes subscribing to cable
service. A customer may purchase more than one premium service, each of which is
counted as a separate premium service unit. This ratio may be greater than 100%
if the average customer subscribes for more than one premium service.
(5) Average monthly revenue per home subscribing to cable service has
been computed based on revenue for the year ended December 31, 1995.
(6) The Partnership reports subscribers for the Systems on an
equivalent subscriber basis and, unless otherwise indicated, the term
"Subscribers" means equivalent subscribers, calculated by dividing aggregate
basic service revenues by the average lowest basic service rate within an
operating entity, adjusted to reflect the impact of regulation. Basic service
revenues include charges for basic programming, bulk and commercial accounts and
certain specialized "packaged programming" services, including the appropriate
components of new product tier revenue, and excluding premium television and
non-subscription services. Consistent with past practices, Subscribers is an
analytically derived number which is reported in order to provide a basis of
comparison to previously reported data. The computation of Subscribers has been
impacted by changes in service offerings made in response to the 1992 Cable Act.
6
<PAGE> 7
CUSTOMER RATES AND SERVICES
The Partnership's cable television systems offers customers
packages of services that include the local area network, independent and
educational television stations, a limited number of television signals from
distant cities, numerous satellite-delivered, non-broadcast channels (such as
CNN, MTV, USA, ESPN and TNT) and certain information and public access channels.
For an extra monthly charge, the systems provide certain premium television
services, such as HBO, Showtime, The Disney Channel and regional sports
networks.
The Partnership also offers other cable television services to
its customers. For additional charges, the Partnership also rents remote control
devices and VCR compatible devices (devices that make it easier for a customer
to tape a program from one channel while watching a program on another).
The service options offered by the Partnership depend upon
channel capacity and viewer interests. Rates for services are based upon the
type of services selected.
Prior to the adoption of the 1992 Cable Act, the systems
generally were not subject to any rate regulation, i.e., they were adjudged to
be subject to effective competition under then-effective FCC regulations. The
1992 Cable Act, however, substantially changed the statutory and FCC rate
regulation standards. Under the new definition of effective competition, nearly
all cable television systems in the United States have become subject to local
rate regulation of basic service. The 1996 Telecom Act expanded this definition
to include situations where a local telephone company, or anyone using its
facilities, offers comparable video service by any means except direct broadcast
satellite ("DBS"). In addition, the 1992 Cable Act eliminated the 5% annual
basic rate increases previously allowed by the 1984 Cable Act without local
approval; allows the FCC to review rates for nonbasic service tiers other than
premium services in response to complaints filed by franchising authorities
and/or cable customers; prohibits cable television systems from requiring
customers to purchase service tiers above basic service in order to purchase
premium services if the system is technically capable of doing so; and adopted
regulations to establish, on the basis of actual costs, the price for
installation of cable television service, remote controls, converter boxes, and
additional outlets. The FCC implemented these rate regulation provisions on
September 1, 1993, which affected all the Partnership's systems which are not
deemed to be subject to effective competition under the FCC's definition. The
FCC substantially amended its rate regulation rules on February 22, 1994 and
again on November 10, 1994. The FCC will have to conduct a number of rulemaking
proceedings in order to implement many of the provisions of the 1996 Telecom
Act. See "Legislation and Regulation."
At December 31, 1995, the Partnership's monthly rates for basic
service ranged from $20.39 to $22.08 and premium service rates ranged from $8.45
to $11.00, excluding special promotions offered periodically in conjunction with
the Partnership's marketing programs. A one-time installation fee, which the
partnership may wholly or partially waive during a promotional period, is
usually charged to new customers. The Partnership, prior to September 1, 1993,
generally charged monthly fees for additional outlets, converters, program
guides and descrambling and remote control tuning devices. As described above,
these charges have either been eliminated or altered by the implementation of
rate regulation, and as a result of such implementation under the FCC's
guidelines, the rates for basic cable service for residential customers
correspondingly increased in some cases. As a result, while many customers
experienced a decrease in their monthly bill for all services, some customers
experienced an increase. However, substantially all the Partnership's customers
did receive a decrease in their monthly charges in July 1994 upon implementation
of the FCC's amended rules. Commercial customers, such as hotels, motels and
hospitals, are charged a negotiated, non-recurring fee for installation of
service and monthly fees based upon a standard discounting procedure. Most
multi-unit dwellings are offered a negotiated bulk rate in exchange for
single-point billing and basic service to all units. These rates are also
subject to regulation.
7
<PAGE> 8
EMPLOYEES
The various personnel required to operate the Partnership's
business are employed by the Partnership, the Corporate General Partner, its
subsidiary corporation and FHGLP. As of February 12, 1996, the Partnership had 4
employees, the cost of which is charged directly to the Partnership. The
employment costs incurred by the Corporate General Partner, its subsidiary
corporation and FHGLP are allocated and charged to the Partnership for
reimbursement pursuant to the partnership agreement and management agreement.
The amounts of these reimbursable costs are set forth below in Item 11.,
"Executive Compensation."
TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS
As part of its commitment to customer service, the Partnership
emphasizes high technical standards and prudently seeks to apply technological
advances in the cable television industry to its systems on the basis of cost
effectiveness, capital availability, enhancement of product quality and service
delivery and industry-wide acceptance. The Partnership's present plan is to
upgrade the technical quality of its systems' cable plant and to increase
channel capacity for the delivery of additional programming and new services.
Currently, the Partnership's systems have an average channel capacity of 37, all
of which is presently utilized. The Partnership believes that system upgrades
would enable it to provide customers with greater programming diversity, better
picture quality and alternative communications delivery systems made possible by
the introduction of fiber optic technology and by the possible future
application of digital compression. The implementation of the Partnership's
capital expenditure plans is, however, subject to the availability of adequate
capital on terms satisfactory to the Partnership, of which there can be no
assurance. Also, as a result of the uncertainty created by recent regulatory
changes, the Partnership has deferred all plant rebuilds and upgrades. See
"Legislation and Regulation" and Item 7., "Management's Discussion and Analysis
of Financial Condition and Results of Operations."
The use of fiber optic cable as an alternative to coaxial cable
is playing a major role in expanding channel capacity and improving the
performance of cable television systems. Fiber optic cable is capable of
carrying hundreds of video, data and voice channels and, accordingly, its
utilization is essential to the enhancement of a cable television system's
technical capabilities. The Partnership's current policy to utilize fiber optic
technology in substantially all rebuild projects which it undertakes is based
upon the benefits that the utilization of fiber optic technology provides over
traditional coaxial cable distribution plant, including lower per mile rebuild
costs due to a reduction in the number of required amplifiers, the elimination
of headends, lower ongoing maintenance and power costs and improved picture
quality and reliability.
DIGITAL COMPRESSION
The Partnership has been closely monitoring developments in the
area of digital compression, a technology which is expected to enable cable
operators to increase the channel capacity of cable television systems by
permitting a significantly increased number of video signals to fit in a cable
television system's existing bandwidth. The Partnership believes that the
utilization of digital compression technology in the future could enable its
systems to increase channel capacity in certain systems in a manner that could
be more cost efficient than rebuilding such systems with higher capacity
distribution plant. The use of digital compression in its systems also could
expand the number and types of services these systems offer and enhance the
development of current and future revenue sources. Equipment vendors are
beginning to market products to provide this technology, but the Partnership's
management has no plans to install it at this time based on its present
understanding of the costs as compared to the benefits of the digital equipment
currently available.
8
<PAGE> 9
PROGRAMMING
The Partnership purchases basic and premium programming for its
systems from Falcon Cablevision. In turn, Falcon Cablevision charges the
Partnership for these costs based on an estimate of what the Partnership could
negotiate for such services for the fifteen partnerships managed by the
Corporate General Partner as a group (approximately 94,600 homes subscribing to
cable service at December 31, 1995), which is generally based on a fixed fee per
customer or a percentage of the gross receipts for the particular service.
Falcon Cablevision's programming contracts are generally for a fixed period of
time and are subject to negotiated renewal. Falcon Cablevision does not have
long-term programming contracts for the supply of a substantial amount if its
programming. Accordingly, no assurance can be given that its, and
correspondingly the Partnership's, programming costs will not increase
substantially in the near future, or that other materially adverse terms will
not be added to Falcon Cablevision's programming contracts. Management believes,
however, that Falcon Cablevision's relations with its programming suppliers
generally are good.
The Partnership's cable programming costs have increased in
recent years and are expected to continue to increase due to additional
programming being provided to basic customers, requirements to add channels
under retransmission carriage agreements entered into with certain programming
sources, increased costs to produce or purchase cable programming generally,
inflationary increases and other factors. Under the FCC rate regulations,
increases in programming costs for regulated cable services occurring after the
earlier of March 1, 1994, or the date a system's basic cable service became
regulated, may be passed through to customers. See "Legislation and Regulation -
Federal Regulation - Carriage of Broadcast Television Signals." Generally,
programming costs are charged among systems on a per customer basis.
FRANCHISES
Cable television systems are generally constructed and operated
under non-exclusive franchises granted by local governmental authorities. These
franchises typically contain many conditions, such as time limitations on
commencement and completion of construction; conditions of service, including
number of channels, types of programming and the provision of free service to
schools and certain other public institutions; and the maintenance of insurance
and indemnity bonds. The provisions of local franchises are subject to federal
regulation under the 1984 Cable Act, the 1992 Cable Act and the 1996 Telecom
Act. See "Legislation and Regulation."
As of December 31, 1995, the Partnership held 6 franchises.
These franchises, all of which are non-exclusive, provide for the payment of
fees to the issuing authority. Annual franchise fees imposed on the Partnership
systems range up to 5% of the gross revenues generated by a system. The 1984
Cable Act prohibits franchising authorities from imposing franchise fees in
excess of 5% of gross revenues and also permits the cable system operator to
seek renegotiation and modification of franchise requirements if warranted by
changed circumstances.
9
<PAGE> 10
The following table groups the franchises of the Partnership's
cable television systems by date of expiration and presents the number of
franchises for each group of franchises and the approximate number and
percentage of homes subscribing to cable service for each group as of December
31, 1995.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Number of Percentage of
Homes Homes
Year of Number of Subscribing to Subscribing to
Franchise Expiration Franchises Cable Service Cable Service
- -------------------- ----------- -------------- -------------
<S> <C> <C> <C>
Prior to 1997 2 2,186 32.2%
1997 - 2001 1 3,450 50.9%
2002 and after 3 1,016 15.0%
- ----- ----
Total 6 6,652 98.1%
= ===== ====
</TABLE>
The Partnership operates cable television systems which serve
multiple communities and, in some circumstances, portions of such systems extend
into jurisdictions for which the Partnership believes no franchise is necessary.
In the aggregate, approximately 132 customers, representing approximately 1.9%
of the Partnership's customers, are served by unfranchised portions of such
systems. In certain instances, where a single franchise comprises a large
percentage of the customers in an operating region, the loss of such franchise
could decrease the economies of scale achieved by the Partnership's clustering
strategy. The Partnership has never had a franchise revoked for any of its
systems and believes that it has satisfactory relationships with substantially
all of its franchising authorities.
The 1984 Cable Act provides, among other things, for an orderly
franchise renewal process in which franchise renewal will not be unreasonably
withheld or, if renewal is withheld, the franchise authority must pay the
operator the "fair market value" for the system covered by such franchise. In
addition, the 1984 Cable Act establishes comprehensive renewal procedures which
require that an incumbent franchisee's renewal application be assessed on its
own merit and not as part of a comparative process with competing applications.
See "Legislation and Regulation."
COMPETITION
Cable television systems compete with other communications and
entertainment media, including over the air television broadcast signals which a
viewer is able to receive directly using the viewer's own television set and
antenna. The extent to which a cable system competes with over-the-air
broadcasting depends upon the quality and quantity of the broadcast signals
available by direct antenna reception compared to the quality and quantity of
such signals and alternative services offered by a cable system. In many areas,
television signals which constitute a substantial part of basic service can be
received by viewers who use their own antennas. Local television reception for
residents of apartment buildings or other multi-unit dwelling complexes may be
aided by use of private master antenna services. Cable systems also face
competition from alternative methods of distributing and receiving television
signals and from other sources of entertainment such as live sporting events,
movie theaters and home video products, including videotape recorders and
cassette players. In recent years, the FCC has adopted policies providing for
authorization of new technologies and a more favorable operating environment for
certain existing technologies that provide, or may provide, substantial
additional competition for cable television systems. The extent to which cable
television service is competitive depends in significant part upon the cable
television system's ability to provide an even greater variety of programming
than that available over the air or through competitive alternative delivery
sources. In addition, certain provisions of the 1992 Cable Act and the 1996
Telecom Act are expected to increase competition significantly in the cable
industry. See "Legislation and Regulation."
10
<PAGE> 11
Individuals presently have the option to purchase earth
stations, which allow the direct reception of satellite-delivered program
services formerly available only to cable television subscribers. Most
satellite-distributed program signals are being electronically scrambled to
permit reception only with authorized decoding equipment for which the consumer
must pay a fee. From time to time, legislation has been introduced in Congress
which, if enacted into law, would prohibit the scrambling of certain
satellite-distributed programs or would make satellite services available to
private earth stations on terms comparable to those offered to cable systems.
Broadcast television signals are being made available to owners of earth
stations under the Satellite Home Viewer Copyright Act of 1988, which became
effective January 1, 1989 for an initial six-year period. This Act establishes a
statutory compulsory license for certain transmissions made by satellite owners
to home satellite dishes, for which carriers are required to pay a royalty fee
to the Copyright Office. This Act has been extended by Congress until December
31, 1999. The 1992 Cable Act enhances the right of cable competitors to purchase
nonbroadcast satellite-delivered programming. See "Legislation and
Regulation-Federal Regulation."
Television programming is now also being delivered to
individuals by high-powered direct broadcast satellites ("DBS") utilizing video
compression technology. This technology has the capability of providing more
than 100 channels of programming over a single high-powered DBS satellite with
significantly higher capacity available if multiple satellites are placed in the
same orbital position. Video compression technology may also be used by cable
operators in the future to similarly increase their channel capacity. DBS
service can be received virtually anywhere in the United States through the
installation of a small rooftop or side-mounted antenna, and it is more
accessible than cable television service where cable plant has not been
constructed or where it is not cost effective to construct cable television
facilities. DBS service is being heavily marketed on a nation-wide basis. The
extent to which DBS systems will be competitive with cable television systems
will depend upon, among other things, the ability of DBS operators to obtain
access to programming, the availability of reception equipment, and whether
equipment and service can be made available to consumers at reasonable prices.
Multi-channel multipoint distribution systems ("MMDS") deliver
programming services over microwave channels licensed by the FCC received by
subscribers with special antennas. MMDS systems are less capital intensive, are
not required to obtain local franchises or to pay franchise fees and are subject
to fewer regulatory requirements than cable television systems. To date, the
ability of these so-called "wireless" cable services to compete with cable
television systems has been limited by channel capacity constraints and the need
for unobstructed line-of-sight over-the-air transmission. Although relatively
few MMDS systems in the United States are currently in operation or under
construction, virtually all markets have been licensed or tentatively licensed.
The FCC has taken a series of actions intended to facilitate the development of
MMDS and other wireless cable systems as alternative means of distributing video
programming, including reallocating certain frequencies to these services and
expanding the permissible use and eligibility requirements for certain channels
reserved for educational purposes. The FCC's actions enable a single entity to
develop an MMDS system with a potential of up to 35 channels that could compete
effectively with cable television. MMDS systems qualify for the statutory
compulsory copyright license for the retansmission of television and radio
broadcast stations. FCC rules and the 1992 Cable Act prohibit the common
ownership of cable systems and MMDS facilities serving the same area.
Additional competition may come from private cable television
systems servicing condominiums, apartment complexes and certain other multiple
unit residential developments. The operators of these private systems, known as
satellite master antenna television ("SMATV") systems, often enter into
exclusive agreements with apartment building owners or homeowners' associations
which preclude franchised cable television operators from serving residents of
such private complexes. Although a number of states have enacted laws to afford
operators of franchised cable television systems access to such private
complexes, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that cable companies cannot have such
access without compensating the property owner. The access statutes of several
states have been challenged successfully in the courts, and other such laws are
under attack. However, the 1984 Cable Act gives
11
<PAGE> 12
franchised cable operators the right to use existing compatible easements within
their franchise areas upon nondiscriminatory terms and conditions. Accordingly,
where there are preexisting compatible easements, cable operators may not be
unfairly denied access or discriminated against with respect to the terms and
conditions of access to those easements. There have been conflicting judicial
decisions interpreting the scope of the access right granted by the 1984 Cable
Act, particularly with respect to easements located entirely on private
property.
Due to the widespread availability of reasonably-priced earth
stations, SMATV systems can offer both improved reception of local television
stations and many of the same satellite-delivered program services which are
offered by franchised cable television systems. Further, while a franchised
cable television system typically is obligated to extend service to all areas of
a community regardless of population density or economic risk, the SMATV system
may confine its operation to small areas that are easy to serve and more likely
to be profitable. Under the 1996 Telecom Act, SMATV systems can interconnect
non-commonly owned buildings without having to comply with local, state and
federal regulatory requirements that are imposed upon cable systems providing
similar services, as long as they do not use public rights-of-way. However, a
SMATV system is subject to the 1984 Cable Act's franchise requirement if it uses
physically closed transmission paths such as wires or cables to interconnect
separately owned and managed buildings if its lines use or cross any public
right-of-way. In some cases, SMATV operators may be able to charge a lower price
than could a cable system providing comparable services and the FCC's new
regulations implementing the 1992 Cable Act limit a cable operator's ability to
reduce its rates to meet this competition. Furthermore, the U.S. Copyright
Office has tentatively concluded that SMATV systems are "cable systems" for
purposes of qualifying for the compulsory copyright license established for
cable systems by federal law. The 1992 Cable Act prohibits the common ownership
of cable systems and SMATV facilities serving the same area. However, a cable
operator can purchase a SMATV system serving the same area and technically
integrate it into the cable system.
The FCC has authorized a new interactive television service
which will permit non-video transmission of information between an individual's
home and entertainment and information service providers. This service will
provide an alternative means for DBS systems and other video programming
distributors, including television stations, to initiate the new interactive
television services. This service may also be used as well by the cable
television industry.
The FCC also has initiated a new rulemaking proceeding looking
toward the allocation of frequencies in the 28 Ghz range for a new multi-channel
wireless video service which could make 98 video channels available in a single
market. It cannot be predicted at this time whether competitors will emerge
utilizing such frequencies or whether such competition would have a material
impact on the operations of cable television systems.
The 1996 Telecom Act eliminates the restriction against
ownership and operation of cable systems by local telephone companies within
their local exchange service areas. Telephone companies are now free to enter
the retail video distribution business through any means, such as DBS, MMDS,
SMATV or as traditional franchised cable system operators. Alternatively, the
1996 Telecom Act authorizes local telephone companies to operate "open video
systems" without obtaining a local cable franchise, although telephone companies
operating such systems can be required to make payments to local governmental
bodies in lieu of cable franchise fees. Up to two-thirds of the channel capacity
on an "open video system" must be available to programmers unaffiliated with the
local telephone company. The open video system concept replaces the FCC's video
dialtone rules. The 1996 Telecom Act also includes numerous provisions designed
to make it easier for cable operators and others to compete directly with local
exchange telephone carriers. With certain limited exceptions, neither a local
exchange carrier nor a cable operator can acquire more than 10% of the other
entity operating within its own service area.
12
<PAGE> 13
Advances in communications technology, as well as changes in
the marketplace and the regulatory and legislative environment, are constantly
occurring. Thus, it is not possible to predict the effect that ongoing or future
developments might have on the cable industry. The ability of cable systems to
compete with present, emerging and future distribution media will depend to a
great extent on obtaining attractive programming. The availability and exclusive
use of a sufficient amount of quality programming may in turn be affected by
developments in regulation or copyright law. See "Legislation and Regulation."
The cable television industry competes with radio, television
and print media for advertising revenues. As the cable television industry
continues to develop programming designed specifically for distribution by
cable, advertising revenues may increase. Premium programming provided by cable
systems is subject to the same competitive factors which exist for other
programming discussed above. The continued profitability of premium services may
depend largely upon the continued availability of attractive programming at
competitive prices.
13
<PAGE> 14
LEGISLATION AND REGULATION
The cable television industry is regulated by the FCC, some
state governments and substantially all local governments. In addition, various
legislative and regulatory proposals under consideration from time to time by
the Congress and various federal agencies have in the past, and may in the
future materially affect the Partnership and the cable television industry. The
following is a summary of federal laws and regulations affecting the growth and
operation of the cable television industry and a description of certain state
and local laws.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
On February 8, 1996, the President signed the 1996 Telecom
Act, into law. This statute substantially amended the Communications Act of 1934
(the "Communications Act") by, among other things, removing barriers to
competition in the cable television and telephone markets and reducing the
regulation of cable television rates. As it pertains to cable television, the
1996 Telecom Act, among other things, (i) ends the regulation of certain
nonbasic programming services in 1999; (ii) expands the definition of effective
competition, the existence of which displaces rate regulation; (iii) eliminates
the restriction against the ownership and operation of cable systems by
telephone companies within their local exchange service areas; and (iv)
liberalizes certain of the FCC's cross-ownership restrictions. The FCC will have
to conduct a number of rulemaking proceedings in order to implement many of the
provisions of the 1996 Telecom Act. See "Business - Competition" and "-Federal
Regulation-Rate Regulation."
The Partnership believes that the regulation of its industry
remains a matter of interest to Congress, the FCC and other regulatory
authorities. There can be no assurance as to what, if any, future actions such
legislative and regulatory authorities may take or the effect thereof on the
Partnership.
CABLE COMMUNICATIONS POLICY ACT OF 1984
The 1984 Cable Act became effective on December 29, 1984. This
federal statute, which amended the Communications Act, creates uniform national
standards and guidelines for the regulation of cable television systems.
Violations by a cable television system operator of provisions of the
Communications Act, as well as of FCC regulations, can subject the operator to
substantial monetary penalties and other sanctions. Among other things, the 1984
Cable Act affirmed the right of franchising authorities (state or local,
depending on the practice in individual states) to award one or more franchises
within their jurisdictions. It also prohibited non-grandfathered cable
television systems from operating without a franchise in such jurisdictions. In
connection with new franchises, the 1984 Cable Act provides that in granting or
renewing franchises, franchising authorities may establish requirements for
cable-related facilities and equipment, but may not establish or enforce
requirements for video programming or information services other than in broad
categories. The 1984 Cable Act grandfathered, for the remaining term of existing
franchises, many but not all of the provisions in existing franchises which
would not be permitted in franchises entered into or renewed after the effective
date of the 1984 Cable Act.
CABLE TELEVISION CONSUMER PROTECTION AND COMPETITION ACT OF 1992
On October 5, 1992, Congress enacted the 1992 Cable Act. This
legislation has effected significant changes to the legislative and regulatory
environment in which the cable industry operates. It amends the 1984 Cable Act
in many respects. The 1992 Cable Act became effective on December 4, 1992,
although certain provisions, most notably those dealing with rate regulation and
retransmission consent, became effective at later dates. The legislation
required the FCC to initiate a number of rulemaking proceedings to implement
various provisions of the statute, virtually all of which have been completed.
The
14
<PAGE> 15
1992 Cable Act allows for a greater degree of regulation of the cable industry
with respect to, among other things: (i) cable system rates for both basic and
certain nonbasic services; (ii) programming access and exclusivity arrangements;
(iii) access to cable channels by unaffiliated programming services; (iv) leased
access terms and conditions; (v) horizontal and vertical ownership of cable
systems; (vi) customer service requirements; (vii) franchise renewals; (viii)
television broadcast signal carriage and retransmission consent; (ix) technical
standards; (x) customer privacy; (xi) consumer protection issues; (xii) cable
equipment compatibility; (xiii) obscene or indecent programming; and (xiv)
requiring subscribers to subscribe to tiers of service other than basic service
as a condition of purchasing premium services. Additionally, the legislation
encourages competition with existing cable television systems by allowing
municipalities to own and operate their own cable television systems without
having to obtain a franchise; preventing franchising authorities from granting
exclusive franchises or unreasonably refusing to award additional franchises
covering an existing cable system's service area; and prohibiting the common
ownership of cable systems and co-located MMDS or SMATV systems. The 1992 Cable
Act also precludes video programmers affiliated with cable television companies
from favoring cable operators over competitors and requires such programmers to
sell their programming to other multichannel video distributors.
A constitutional challenge to the must-carry provisions of the
1992 Cable Act is still ongoing. On April 8, 1993, a three-judge district court
panel granted summary judgment for the government upholding the must-carry
provisions. That decision was appealed directly to the U.S. Supreme Court which
remanded the case back to the district court to determine whether there was
adequate evidence that the provisions were needed and whether the restrictions
chosen were the least intrusive. On December 12, 1995, the district court again
upheld the must-carry provisions. The Supreme Court has again agreed to review
the district court's decision.
On September 16, 1993, a constitutional challenge to the balance
of the 1992 Cable Act provisions was rejected by the U.S. District Court in the
District of Columbia which upheld the constitutionality of all but three
provisions of the statute (multiple ownership limits for cable operators,
advance notice of free previews for certain programming services and channel
set-asides for DBS operators). An appeal from that decision is pending before
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
FEDERAL REGULATION
The FCC, the principal federal regulatory agency with
jurisdiction over cable television, has heretofore promulgated regulations
covering such areas as the registration of cable television systems,
cross-ownership between cable television systems and other communications
businesses, carriage of television broadcast programming, consumer education and
lockbox enforcement, origination cablecasting and sponsorship identification,
children's programming, the regulation of basic cable service rates in areas
where cable television systems are not subject to effective competition, signal
leakage and frequency use, technical performance, maintenance of various
records, equal employment opportunity, and antenna structure notification,
marking and lighting. The FCC has the authority to enforce these regulations
through the imposition of substantial fines, the issuance of cease and desist
orders and/or the imposition of other administrative sanctions, such as the
revocation of FCC licenses needed to operate certain transmission facilities
often used in connection with cable operations. The 1992 Cable Act required the
FCC to adopt additional regulations covering, among other things, cable rates,
signal carriage, consumer protection and customer service, leased access,
indecent programming, programmer access to cable television systems, programming
agreements, technical standards, consumer electronics equipment compatibility,
ownership of home wiring, program exclusivity, equal employment opportunity, and
various aspects of direct broadcast satellite system ownership and operation.
The 1996 Telecom Act requires certain changes to various of these regulations. A
brief summary of certain of these federal regulations as adopted to date
follows.
15
<PAGE> 16
RATE REGULATION
The 1984 Cable Act codified existing FCC preemption of rate
regulation for premium channels and optional nonbasic program tiers. The 1984
Cable Act also deregulated basic cable rates for cable television systems
determined by the FCC to be subject to effective competition. The 1992 Cable Act
substantially changed the previous statutory and FCC rate regulation standards.
The 1992 Cable Act replaced the FCC's old standard for determining effective
competition, under which most cable systems were not subject to local rate
regulation, with a statutory provision that resulted in nearly all cable
television systems becoming subject to local rate regulation of basic service.
The 1996 Telecom Act expands the definition of effective competition to cover
situations where a local telephone company or its affiliate, or any multichannel
video provider using telephone company facilities, offers comparable video
service by any means except DBS. Satisfaction of this test deregulates both
basic and nonbasic tiers. Additionally, the 1992 Cable Act eliminated the 5%
annual rate increase for basic service previously allowed by the 1984 Cable Act
without local approval; required the FCC to adopt a formula, for franchising
authorities to enforce, to assure that basic cable rates are reasonable; allowed
the FCC to review rates for nonbasic service tiers (other than per-channel or
per-program services) in response to complaints filed by franchising authorities
and/or cable customers; prohibited cable television systems from requiring
subscribers to purchase service tiers above basic service in order to purchase
premium services if the system is technically capable of doing so; required the
FCC to adopt regulations to establish, on the basis of actual costs, the price
for installation of cable service, remote controls, converter boxes and
additional outlets; and allows the FCC to impose restrictions on the retiering
and rearrangement of cable services under certain limited circumstances. The
1996 Telecom Act ends FCC regulation of nonbasic tier rates on March 31, 1999.
The FCC adopted rules designed to implement the 1992 Cable Act's
rate regulation provisions on April 1, 1993, and then significantly amended them
on reconsideration on February 22, 1994. The FCC's regulations contain standards
for the regulation of basic and nonbasic cable service rates (other than
per-channel or per-program services). The FCC's original rules became effective
on September 1, 1993. The rules have been further amended several times. The
rate regulations adopt a benchmark price cap system for measuring the
reasonableness of existing basic and nonbasic service rates, and a formula for
calculating additional rate increases. Alternatively, cable operators have the
opportunity to make cost-of-service showings which, in some cases, may justify
rates above the applicable benchmarks. The rules also require that charges for
cable-related equipment (e.g. , converter boxes and remote control devices) and
installation services be unbundled from the provision of cable service and based
upon actual costs plus a reasonable profit.
Local franchising authorities and/or the FCC are empowered to
order a reduction of existing rates which exceed the maximum permitted level for
either basic and/or nonbasic cable services and associated equipment, and
refunds can be required, measured from the date of a complaint to the FCC
challenging an existing nonbasic cable service rate or from September 1993, for
existing basic cable service rates under the original rate regulations, and from
May 15, 1994, under the February 22, 1994 amendments thereto. In general, the
reduction for existing basic and nonbasic cable service rates under the original
rate regulations would be to the greater of the applicable benchmark level or
the rates in force as of September 30, 1992, minus 10 percent, adjusted forward
for inflation. The amended regulations require an aggregate reduction of 17
percent, adjusted forward for inflation, from the rates in force as of September
30, 1992. The regulations also provide that future rate increases may not exceed
an inflation-indexed amount, plus increases in certain costs beyond the cable
operator's control, such as taxes, franchise fees and increased programming
costs. Cost-based adjustments to these capped rates can also be made in the
event a cable operator adds or deletes channels. Amendments adopted on November
10, 1994 incorporated an alternative method for adjusting the rate charged for a
regulated nonbasic tier when new services are added. Cable operators can
increase rates for such tiers by as much as $1.50 over a two year period to
reflect the addition of up to six new channels of service on nonbasic tiers (an
additional $0.20 for a seventh channel is
16
<PAGE> 17
permitted in the third year). In addition, new product tiers consisting of
services new to the cable system can be created free of rate regulation as long
as certain conditions are met such as not moving services from existing tiers to
the new tier. These provisions currently provide limited benefit to the
Partnership's systems due to the lack of channel capacity previously discussed.
There is also a streamlined cost-of-service methodology available to justify a
rate increase on basic and regulated nonbasic tiers for "significant" system
rebuilds or upgrades.
Franchising authorities have become certified by the FCC to
regulate the rates charged by the Partnership for basic cable service and for
associated basic cable service equipment. In addition, a number of the
Partnership's customers have filed complaints with the FCC regarding the rates
charged for non-basic cable service.
The Partnership has adjusted its regulated programming service
rates and related equipment and installation charges in substantially all of its
systems so as to bring these rates and charges into compliance with the
applicable benchmark or equipment and installation cost levels. The Partnership
also implemented a program in substantially all of its systems under which a
number of the Partnership's satellite-delivered and premium services are now
offered individually on a per channel (i.e., a la carte) basis, or as a group at
a discounted price. A la carte services were not subject to the FCC's rate
regulations under the rules originally issued to implement the 1992 Cable Act.
The FCC, in its reconsideration of the original rate regulations,
stated that it was going to take a harder look at the regulatory treatment of
such a la carte packages on an ad hoc basis. Such packages which are determined
to be evasions of rate regulation rather than true enhancements of subscriber
choice will be treated as regulated tiers and, therefore, subject to rate
regulation. There have been no FCC rulings related to systems owned by the
Partnership. There have been two rulings, however, on such packages offered by
affiliated partnerships managed by FHGLP. In one case, the FCC's Cable Services
Bureau ruled that a nine-channel a la carte package was an evasion of rate
regulation and ordered this package to be treated as a regulated tier. In the
other case, a six-channel package was held not to be an evasion, but rather is
to be considered an unregulated new product tier under the FCC's November 10,
1994 rule amendments. The deciding factor in all of the FCC's decisions related
to a la carte tiers appears to be the number of channels moved from regulated
tiers, with six or fewer channels being deemed not to be an evasion. Almost all
of the Partnership's systems moved six or fewer channels to a la carte packages.
Under the November 10, 1994 amendments, any new a la carte package created after
that date will be treated as a regulated tier, except for packages involving
traditional premium services (e.g., HBO).
In December 1995, the Partnership, and all of its affiliated
partnerships, filed petitions with the FCC seeking a determination that they are
eligible for treatment as "small cable operators" for purposes of being able to
utilize the FCC's streamlined cost-of-service rate-setting methodology. If such
relief is granted, many of the Partnership's systems would be able to increase
their basic and/or nonbasic service tier rates.
On March 11, 1993, the FCC adopted regulations pursuant to the
1992 Act which require cable systems to permit customers to purchase video
programming on a per channel or a per program basis without the necessity of
subscribing to any tier of service, other than the basic service tier, unless
the cable system is technically incapable of doing so. Generally, this exemption
from compliance with the statute for cable systems that do not have such
technical capability is available until a cable system obtains the capability,
but not later than December 2002.
CARRIAGE OF BROADCAST TELEVISION SIGNALS
The 1992 Cable Act contains new signal carriage requirements.
These new rules allowed commercial television broadcast stations which are
"local" to a cable system, i.e., the system is located in
17
<PAGE> 18
the station's Area of Dominant Influence, to elect every three years whether to
require the cable system to carry the station, subject to certain exceptions, or
whether the cable system will have to negotiate for "retransmission consent" to
carry the station. The first such election was made on June 17, 1993. Local
non-commercial television stations are also given mandatory carriage rights,
subject to certain exceptions, within the larger of: (i) a 50 mile radius from
the station's city of license; or (ii) the station's Grade B contour (a measure
of signal strength). Unlike commercial stations, noncommercial stations are not
given the option to negotiate retransmission consent for the carriage of their
signal. In addition, cable systems will have to obtain retransmission consent
for the carriage of all "distant" commercial broadcast stations, except for
certain "superstations," i.e., commercial satellite-delivered independent
stations such as WTBS. The 1992 Cable Act also eliminated, effective December 4,
1992, the FCC's regulations requiring the provision of input selector switches.
The must-carry provisions for non-commercial stations became effective on
December 4, 1992. Implementing must-carry rules for non-commercial and
commercial stations and retransmission consent rules for commercial stations
were adopted by the FCC on March 11, 1993. All commercial stations entitled to
carriage were to have been carried by June 2, 1993, and any non-must-carry
stations (other than superstations) for which retransmission consent had not
been obtained could no longer be carried after October 5, 1993. A number of
stations previously carried by the Partnership's cable television systems
elected retransmission consent. The Partnership was able to reach agreements
with broadcasters who elected retransmission consent or to negotiate extensions
to the October 6, 1993 deadline and has therefore not been required to pay cash
compensation to broadcasters for retransmission consent or been required by
broadcasters to remove broadcast stations from the cable television channel
line-ups. The Partnership has, however, agreed to carry some services (e.g.,
ESPN2 and a new service by FOX) in specified markets pursuant to retransmission
consent arrangements which it believes are comparable to those entered into by
most other large cable operator, and for which it pays monthly fees to the
service providers, as it does with other satellite providers. The next election
between must-carry and retransmission consent for local commercial television
broadcast stations will be October 1, 1996.
NONDUPLICATION OF NETWORK PROGRAMMING
Cable television systems that have 1,000 or more customers must,
upon the appropriate request of a local television station, delete the
simultaneous or nonsimultaneous network programming of a distant station when
such programming has also been contracted for by the local station on an
exclusive basis.
DELETION OF SYNDICATED PROGRAMMING
FCC regulations enable television broadcast stations that have
obtained exclusive distribution rights for syndicated programming in their
market to require a cable system to delete or "black out" such programming from
other television stations which are carried by the cable system. The extent of
such deletions will vary from market to market and cannot be predicted with
certainty. However, it is possible that such deletions could be substantial and
could lead the cable operator to drop a distant signal in its entirety. The FCC
also has commenced a proceeding to determine whether to relax or abolish the
geographic limitations on program exclusivity contained in its rules, which
would allow parties to set the geographic scope of exclusive distribution rights
entirely by contract, and to determine whether such exclusivity rights should be
extended to noncommercial educational stations. It is possible that the outcome
of these proceedings will increase the amount of programming that cable
operators are requested to black out. Finally, the FCC has declined to impose
equivalent syndicated exclusivity rules on satellite carriers who provide
services to the owners of home satellite dishes similar to those provided by
cable systems.
FRANCHISE FEES
Although franchising authorities may impose franchise fees under
the 1984 Cable Act, such payments cannot exceed 5% of a cable system's annual
gross revenues. Under the 1996 Telecom Act,
18
<PAGE> 19
franchising authorities may not exact franchise fees from revenues derived from
telecommunications services. Franchising authorities are also empowered in
awarding new franchises or renewing existing franchises to require cable
operators to provide cable-related facilities and equipment and to enforce
compliance with voluntary commitments. In the case of franchises in effect prior
to the effective date of the 1984 Cable Act, franchising authorities may enforce
requirements contained in the franchise relating to facilities, equipment and
services, whether or not cable-related. The 1984 Cable Act, under certain
limited circumstances, permits a cable operator to obtain modifications of
franchise obligations.
RENEWAL OF FRANCHISES
The 1984 Cable Act established renewal procedures and criteria
designed to protect incumbent franchisees against arbitrary denials of renewal.
While these formal procedures are not mandatory unless timely invoked by either
the cable operator or the franchising authority, they can provide substantial
protection to incumbent franchisees. Even after the formal renewal procedures
are invoked, franchising authorities and cable operators remain free to
negotiate a renewal outside the formal process. Nevertheless, renewal is by no
means assured, as the franchisee must meet certain statutory standards. Even if
a franchise is renewed, a franchising authority may impose new and more onerous
requirements such as upgrading facilities and equipment, although the
municipality must take into account the cost of meeting such requirements.
The 1992 Cable Act makes several changes to the process under
which a cable operator seeks to enforce his renewal rights which could make it
easier in some cases for a franchising authority to deny renewal. While a cable
operator must still submit its request to commence renewal proceedings within
thirty to thirty-six months prior to franchise expiration to invoke the formal
renewal process, the request must be in writing and the franchising authority
must commence renewal proceedings not later than six months after receipt of
such notice. The four-month period for the franchising authority to grant or
deny the renewal now runs from the submission of the renewal proposal, not the
completion of the public proceeding. Franchising authorities may consider the
"level" of programming service provided by a cable operator in deciding whether
to renew. For alleged franchise violations occurring after December 29, 1984,
franchising authorities are no longer precluded from denying renewal based on
failure to substantially comply with the material terms of the franchise where
the franchising authority has "effectively acquiesced" to such past violations.
Rather, the franchising authority is estopped if, after giving the cable
operator notice and opportunity to cure, it fails to respond to a written notice
from the cable operator of its failure or inability to cure. Courts may not
reverse a denial of renewal based on procedural violations found to be "harmless
error."
A recent federal court decision could, if upheld and if adopted
by other federal courts, make the renewal of franchises more problematical in
certain circumstances. The United States District Court for the Western District
of Kentucky held that the statute does not authorize it to review a franchising
authority's assessment of its community needs to determine if they are
reasonable or supported by any evidence. This result would seemingly permit a
franchising authority which desired to oust an existing operator to set
cable-related needs at such a high level that the incumbent operator would have
difficulty in making a renewal proposal which met those needs. This decision has
been appealed. The Partnership was not a party to this litigation.
CHANNEL SET-ASIDES
The 1984 Cable Act permits local franchising authorities to
require cable operators to set aside certain channels for public, educational
and governmental access programming. The 1984 Cable Act further requires cable
television systems with thirty-six or more activated channels to designate a
portion of their channel capacity for commercial leased access by unaffiliated
third parties. While the 1984 Cable Act
19
<PAGE> 20
presently allows cable operators substantial latitude in setting leased access
rates, the 1992 Cable Act requires leased access rates to be set according to a
formula determined by the FCC.
COMPETING FRANCHISES
Questions concerning the ability of municipalities to award a
single cable television franchise and to impose certain franchise restrictions
upon cable television companies have been considered in several recent federal
appellate and district court decisions. These decisions have been somewhat
inconsistent and, until the U.S. Supreme Court rules definitively on the scope
of cable television's First Amendment protections, the legality of the
franchising process and of various specific franchise requirements is likely to
be in a state of flux. It is not possible at the present time to predict the
constitutionally permissible bounds of cable franchising and particular
franchise requirements. However, the 1992 Cable Act, among other things,
prohibits franchising authorities from unreasonably refusing to grant franchises
to competing cable television systems and permits franchising authorities to
operate their own cable television systems without franchises.
OWNERSHIP
The 1984 Cable Act codified existing FCC cross-ownership
regulations, which, in part, prohibit local exchange telephone companies
("LECs") from providing video programming directly to customers within their
local exchange telephone service areas, except in rural areas or by specific
waiver of FCC rules. This restriction had been ruled unconstitutional in several
court cases, and was before the Supreme Court for review, when the 1996 Telecom
Act was passed. That statute repealed the rule in its entirety.
The 1984 Cable Act and the FCC's rules prohibit the common
ownership, operation, control or interest in a cable system and a local
television broadcast station whose predicted grade B contour (a measure of a
television station's significant signal strength as defined by the FCC's rules)
covers any portion of the community served by the cable system. The 1996 Telecom
Act eliminates the statutory ban and directs the FCC to review its rule within
two years. Common ownership or control has historically also been prohibited by
the FCC (but not by the 1984 Cable Act) between a cable system and a national
television network. The 1996 Telecom Act eliminates this prohibition. Finally,
in order to encourage competition in the provision of video programming, the FCC
adopted a rule prohibiting the common ownership, affiliation, control or
interest in cable television systems and MDS facilities having overlapping
service areas, except in very limited circumstances. The 1992 Cable Act codified
this restriction and extended it to co-located SMATV systems. Permitted
arrangements in effect as of October 5, 1992 are grandfathered. The 1996 Telecom
Act exempts cable systems facing effective competition from this restriction.
The 1992 Cable Act permits states or local franchising authorities to adopt
certain additional restrictions on the ownership of cable television systems.
Pursuant to the 1992 Cable Act, the FCC has imposed limits on the
number of cable systems which a single cable operator can own. In general, no
cable operator can have an attributable interest in cable systems which pass
more than 30% of all homes nationwide. Attributable interests for these purposes
include voting interests of 5% or more (unless there is another single holder of
more than 50% of the voting stock), officerships, directorships and general
partnership interests. The FCC has stayed the effectiveness of these rules
pending the outcome of the appeal from the U.S. District Court decision holding
the multiple ownership limit provision of the 1992 Cable Act unconstitutional.
The FCC has also adopted rules which limit the number of channels
on a cable system which can be occupied by programming in which the entity which
owns the cable system has an attributable interest. The limit is 40% of all
activated channels.
20
<PAGE> 21
EEO
The 1984 Cable Act includes provisions to ensure that minorities
and women are provided equal employment opportunities within the cable
television industry. The statute requires the FCC to adopt reporting and
certification rules that apply to all cable system operators with more than five
full-time employees. Pursuant to the requirements of the 1992 Cable Act, the FCC
has imposed more detailed annual EEO reporting requirements on cable operators
and has expanded those requirements to all multichannel video service
distributors. Failure to comply with the EEO requirements can result in the
imposition of fines and/or other administrative sanctions, or may, in certain
circumstances, be cited by a franchising authority as a reason for denying a
franchisee's renewal request.
PRIVACY
The 1984 Cable Act imposes a number of restrictions on the manner
in which cable system operators can collect and disclose data about individual
system customers. The statute also requires that the system operator
periodically provide all customers with written information about its policies
regarding the collection and handling of data about customers, their privacy
rights under federal law and their enforcement rights. In the event that a cable
operator is found to have violated the customer privacy provisions of the 1984
Cable Act, it could be required to pay damages, attorneys' fees and other costs.
Under the 1992 Cable Act, the privacy requirements are strengthened to require
that cable operators take such actions as are necessary to prevent unauthorized
access to personally identifiable information.
FRANCHISE TRANSFERS
The 1992 Cable Act precluded cable operators from selling or
otherwise transferring ownership of a cable television system within 36 months
after acquisition or initial construction, with certain exceptions. The 1996
Telecom Act repealed this restriction. The 1992 Cable Act also requires
franchising authorities to act on any franchise transfer request submitted after
December 4, 1992 within 120 days after receipt of all information required by
FCC regulations and by the franchising authority. Approval is deemed to be
granted if the franchising authority fails to act within such period.
REGISTRATION PROCEDURE AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
Prior to commencing operation in a particular community, all
cable television systems must file a registration statement with the FCC listing
the broadcast signals they will carry and certain other information.
Additionally, cable operators periodically are required to file various
informational reports with the FCC. Cable operators who operate in certain
frequency bands are required on an annual basis to file the results of their
periodic cumulative leakage testing measurements. Operators who fail to make
this filing or who exceed the FCC's allowable cumulative leakage index risk
being prohibited from operating in those frequency bands in addition to other
sanctions.
TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS
Historically, the FCC has imposed technical standards applicable
to the cable channels on which broadcast stations are carried, and has
prohibited franchising authorities from adopting standards which were in
conflict with or more restrictive than those established by the FCC. The FCC has
revised such standards and made them applicable to all classes of channels which
carry downstream National Television System Committee (NTSC) video programming.
The FCC also has adopted additional standards applicable to cable television
systems using frequencies in the 108-137 Mhz and 225- 400 Mhz bands in order to
prevent harmful interference with aeronautical navigation and safety radio
services and has also established limits on cable system signal leakage.
Periodic testing by cable operators for compliance with the technical standards
and signal leakage limits is required. The 1992 Cable Act requires the FCC to
21
<PAGE> 22
periodically update its technical standards to take into account changes in
technology. Under the 1996 Telecom Act, local franchising authorities may not
prohibit, condition or restrict a cable system's use of any type of subscriber
equipment or transmission technology.
The FCC has adopted regulations to implement the requirements of
the 1992 Cable Act designed to improve the compatibility of cable systems and
consumer electronics equipment. These regulations, inter alia, generally
prohibit cable operators from scrambling their basic service tier and from
changing the infrared codes used in their existing customer premises equipment.
This latter requirement could make it more difficult or costly for cable
operators to upgrade their customer premises equipment and the FCC has been
asked to reconsider its regulations. The 1996 Telecom Act directs the FCC to set
only minimal standards to assure compatibility between television sets, VCRs and
cable systems, and to rely on the marketplace. The FCC must adopt rules to
assure the competitive availability to consumers of customer premises equipment,
such as converters, used to access the services offered by cable systems and
other multichannel video programming distributors.
POLE ATTACHMENTS
The FCC currently regulates the rates and conditions imposed by
certain public utilities for use of their poles unless state public service
commissions are able to demonstrate that they regulate the rates, terms and
conditions of cable television pole attachments. A number of states and the
District of Columbia have certified to the FCC that they regulate the rates,
terms and conditions for pole attachments. In the absence of state regulation,
the FCC administers such pole attachment rates through use of a formula which it
has devised. The 1996 Telecom Act directs the FCC to adopt a new rate formula
for any attaching party, including cable systems, which offer telecommunications
services. This new formula will result in significantly higher attachment rates
for cable systems which choose to offer such services.
OTHER MATTERS
FCC regulation pursuant to the Communications Act, as amended,
also includes matters regarding a cable system's carriage of local sports
programming; restrictions on origination and cablecasting by cable system
operators; application of the fairness doctrine and rules governing political
broadcasts; customer service; obscenity and indecency; home wiring and
limitations on advertising contained in nonbroadcast children's programming.
The 1996 Telecom Act establishes a process for the creation and
implementation of a "voluntary" system of ratings for video programming
containing sexual, violent or other "indecent" material and directs the FCC to
adopt rules requiring most television sets manufactured in the United States or
shipped in interstate commerce to be technologically capable of blocking the
display of programs with a common rating. The 1996 Telecom Act also requires
video programming distributors to employ technology to restrict the reception of
programming by persons not subscribing to those channels. In the case of
channels primarily dedicated to sexually-oriented programming, the distributor
must fully block reception of the audio and video portion of the channels; a
distributor that is unable to comply with this requirement may only provide such
programming during a "safe harbor" period when children are not likely to be in
the audience, as determined by the FCC. With respect to other kinds of channels,
the 1996 Telecom Act only requires that the audio and video portions of the
channel be fully blocked, at no charge, upon request of the person not
subscribing to the channel. The specific blocking requirements applicable to
sexually-oriented programming are being challenged in court on constitutional
grounds.
COPYRIGHT
Cable television systems are subject to federal copyright
licensing covering carriage of broadcast signals. In exchange for making
semi-annual payments to a federal copyright royalty pool and
22
<PAGE> 23
meeting certain other obligations, cable operators obtain a statutory license to
retransmit broadcast signals. The amount of this royalty payment varies,
depending on the amount of system revenues from certain sources, the number of
distant signals carried, and the location of the cable system with respect to
over-the-air television stations. Originally, the Federal Copyright Royalty
Tribunal was empowered to make and, in fact, did make several adjustments in
copyright royalty rates. This tribunal was eliminated by Congress in 1993. Any
future adjustment to the copyright royalty rates will be done through an
arbitration process to be supervised by the U.S. Copyright Office. Requests to
adjust the rates were made in January, 1996 and are pending before the Copyright
Office.
Cable operators are liable for interest on underpaid and unpaid
royalty fees, but are not entitled to collect interest on refunds received for
overpayment of copyright fees.
The Copyright Office has commenced a proceeding aimed at
examining its policies governing the consolidated reporting of commonly owned
and contiguous cable television systems. The present policies governing the
consolidated reporting of certain cable television systems have often led to
substantial increases in the amount of copyright fees owed by the systems
affected. These situations have most frequently arisen in the context of cable
television system mergers and acquisitions. While it is not possible to predict
the outcome of this proceeding, any changes adopted by the Copyright Office in
its current policies may have the effect of reducing the copyright impact of
certain transactions involving cable company mergers and cable television system
acquisitions.
Various bills have been introduced into Congress over the past
several years that would eliminate or modify the cable television compulsory
license. Without the compulsory license, cable operators would have to negotiate
rights from the copyright owners for all of the programming on the broadcast
stations carried by cable systems. Such negotiated agreements would likely
increase the cost to cable operators of carrying broadcast signals. The 1992
Cable Act's retransmission consent provisions expressly provide that
retransmission consent agreements between television broadcast stations and
cable operators do not obviate the need for cable operators to obtain a
copyright license for the programming carried on each broadcaster's signal.
Copyrighted music performed in programming supplied to cable
television systems by pay cable networks (such as HBO) and basic cable networks
(such as USA Network) is licensed by the networks through private agreements
with the American Society of Composers and Publishers ("ASCAP") and BMI, Inc.
("BMI"), the two major performing rights organizations in the United States. As
a result of extensive litigation, both ASCAP and BMI now offer "through to the
viewer" licenses to the cable networks which cover the retransmission of the
cable networks' programming by cable systems to their customers.
Copyrighted music performed by cable systems themselves on local
origination channels, in advertisements inserted locally on cable networks, et
cetera, must also be licensed. A blanket license is available from BMI. Cable
industry negotiations with ASCAP are still in progress.
STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION
Because a cable television system uses local streets and
rights-of-way, cable television systems are subject to state and local
regulation, typically imposed through the franchising process. State and/or
local officials are usually involved in franchise selection, system design and
construction, safety, service rates, consumer relations, billing practices and
community related programming and services.
Cable television systems generally are operated pursuant to
nonexclusive franchises, permits or licenses granted by a municipality or other
state or local government entity. Franchises generally are granted for fixed
terms and in many cases are terminable if the franchise operator fails to comply
with material provisions. Although the 1984 Cable Act provides for certain
procedural protections, there can be
23
<PAGE> 24
no assurance that renewals will be granted or that renewals will be made on
similar terms and conditions. Franchises usually call for the payment of fees,
often based on a percentage of the system's gross customer revenues, to the
granting authority. Upon receipt of a franchise, the cable system owner usually
is subject to a broad range of obligations to the issuing authority directly
affecting the business of the system. The terms and conditions of franchises
vary materially from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and even from city to city
within the same state, historically ranging from reasonable to highly
restrictive or burdensome. The 1984 Cable Act places certain limitations on a
franchising authority's ability to control the operation of a cable system
operator and the courts have from time to time reviewed the constitutionality of
several general franchise requirements, including franchise fees and access
channel requirements, often with inconsistent results. On the other hand, the
1992 Cable Act prohibits exclusive franchises, and allows franchising
authorities to exercise greater control over the operation of franchised cable
television systems, especially in the area of customer service and rate
regulation. The 1992 Cable Act also allows franchising authorities to operate
their own multichannel video distribution system without having to obtain a
franchise and permits states or local franchising authorities to adopt certain
restrictions on the ownership of cable television systems. Moreover, franchising
authorities are immunized from monetary damage awards arising from regulation of
cable television systems or decisions made on franchise grants, renewals,
transfers and amendments.
The specific terms and conditions of a franchise and the laws and
regulations under which it was granted directly affect the profitability of the
cable television system. Cable franchises generally contain provisions governing
charges for basic cable television services, fees to be paid to the franchising
authority, length of the franchise term, renewal, sale or transfer of the
franchise, territory of the franchise, design and technical performance of the
system, use and occupancy of public streets and number and types of cable
services provided. The 1996 Telecom Act prohibits a franchising authority from
either requiring or limiting a cable operator's provision of telecommunications
services.
Various proposals have been introduced at the state and local
levels with regard to the regulation of cable television systems, and a number
of states have adopted legislation subjecting cable television systems to the
jurisdiction of centralized state governmental agencies, some of which impose
regulation of a character similar to that of a public utility.
The attorneys general of approximately 25 states have announced
the initiation of investigations designed to determine whether cable television
systems in their states have acted in compliance with the FCC's rate
regulations.
The foregoing does not purport to describe all present and
proposed federal, state and local regulations and legislation relating to the
cable television industry. Other existing federal regulations, copyright
licensing and, in many jurisdictions, state and local franchise requirements,
currently are the subject of a variety of judicial proceedings, legislative
hearings and administrative and legislative proposals which could change, in
varying degrees, the manner in which cable television systems operate. Neither
the outcome of these proceedings nor their impact upon the cable television
industry can be predicted at this time.
24
<PAGE> 25
ITEM 2. PROPERTIES
The Partnership owns or leases parcels of real property for
signal reception sites (antenna towers and headends), microwave facilities and
business offices, and owns or leases its service vehicles. The Partnership
believes that its properties, both owned and leased, are in good condition and
are suitable and adequate for the Partnership's business operations.
The Partnership owns substantially all of the assets related to
its cable television operations, including its program production equipment,
headend (towers, antennae, electronic equipment and satellite earth stations),
cable plant (distribution equipment, amplifiers, customer drops and hardware),
converters, test equipment and tools and maintenance equipment.
ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
The Partnership is a party to various legal proceedings. Such
legal proceedings are ordinary and routine litigation proceedings that are
incidental to the Partnership's business and management believes that the
outcome of all pending legal proceedings will not, in the aggregate, have a
material adverse effect on the financial condition of the Partnership.
ITEM 4. SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS
None
25
<PAGE> 26
PART II
ITEM 5. MARKET FOR THE REGISTRANT'S EQUITY SECURITIES AND RELATED
SECURITY HOLDER MATTERS
LIQUIDITY
While the Partnership's equity securities, which consist of
units of limited partnership interests, are publicly held, there is no
established public trading market for the units and it is not expected that a
market will develop. The approximate number of equity security holders of record
was 1,130 as of December 31, 1995. In addition to restrictions on the
transferability of units contained in the Partnership Agreement, the
transferability of units may be affected by restrictions on resales imposed by
federal or state law.
DISTRIBUTIONS
The amended Partnership Agreement generally provides that all
cash distributions (as defined) be allocated 1% to the general partners and 99%
to the limited partners until the limited partners have received aggregate cash
distributions equal to their original capital contributions ("Capital Payback").
The Partnership Agreement also provides that all Partnership profits, gains,
operational losses, and credits (all as defined) be allocated 1% to the general
partners and 99% to the limited partners until the limited partners have been
allocated net profits equal to the amount of cash flow required for Capital
Payback. After the limited partners have received cash flow equal to their
initial investments, the general partners will receive a 1% allocation of cash
flow from sale or liquidation of a system until the limited partners have
received an annual simple interest return of at least 18% of their initial
investments less any distributions from previous system sales and cash
distributions from operations after Capital Payback. Thereafter, the respective
allocations will be made 15% to the general partners and 85% to the limited
partners. Any losses from system sales or exchanges shall be allocated first to
all partners having positive capital account balances (based on their respective
capital accounts) until all such accounts are reduced to zero and thereafter to
the Corporate General Partner. All allocations to individual limited partners
will be based on their respective limited partnership ownership interests.
Upon the disposition of substantially all of the Partnership's
assets, gain shall be allocated first to the limited partners having negative
capital account balances until their capital accounts are increased to zero,
next equally among the general partners until their capital accounts are
increased to zero, and thereafter as outlined in the preceding paragraph. Upon
dissolution of the Partnership, any negative capital account balances remaining
after all allocations and distributions are made must be funded by the
respective partners.
The policy of the Corporate General Partner (although there is
no contractual obligation to do so) is to cause the Partnership to make cash
distributions on a quarterly basis throughout the operational life of the
Partnership, assuming the availability of sufficient cash flow from Partnership
operations. The amount of such distributions, if any, will vary from quarter to
quarter depending upon the Partnership's results of operations and the Corporate
General Partner's determination of whether otherwise available funds are needed
for the Partnership's ongoing working capital and other liquidity requirements.
However, on February 22, 1995, the FCC announced significant amendments to its
rules implementing certain provisions of the 1992 Cable Act. Compliance with
these rules has had a negative impact on the Partnership's revenues and cash
flow.
The Partnership began making periodic cash distributions to
limited partners from operations during 1986, and distributed an aggregate of
$374,200 ($12.50 per unit) to limited partners in each year
26
<PAGE> 27
during 1993, 1994 and 1995. The Partnership will continue to determine the
Partnership's ability to pay distributions on a quarter-by-quarter basis.
The Partnership's ability to pay distributions, the actual level
of distributions and the continuance of distributions will depend on a number of
factors, including the amount of cash flow from operations, projected capital
expenditures, provision for contingent liabilities, availability of bank
refinancing, regulatory or legislative developments governing the cable
television industry, and growth in customers. Some of these factors are beyond
the control of the Partnership, and consequently, no assurances can be given
regarding the level or timing of future distributions.
27
<PAGE> 28
ITEM 6. SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Year Ended December 31,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INCOME STATEMENT DATA 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
---- ---- ---- ---- ----
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C>
Revenues $ 2,232,900 $ 2,418,900 $ 2,601,600 $ 2,574,000 $ 2,603,700
Costs and expenses (1,269,300) (1,296,500) (1,386,700) (1,418,500) (1,390,900)
Depreciation and amortization (897,900) (789,000) (367,200) (368,000) (694,200)
----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
Operating income 65,700 333,400 847,700 787,500 518,600
Interest expense (37,700) (22,800) (17,800) (6,100) (9,000)
Interest income 4,200 23,600 34,100 66,400 109,000
----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
Net income $ 32,200 $ 334,200 $ 864,000 $ 847,800 $ 618,600
=========== =========== =========== =========== ===========
Distributions to partners $ -- $ -- $ 378,000 $ 378,000 $ 378,000
=========== =========== =========== =========== ===========
PER UNIT OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP INTEREST:
Net income $ 1.06 $ 11.05 $ 28.57 $ 28.04 $ 20.46
=========== =========== =========== =========== ===========
Distributions $ -- $ -- $ (12.50) $ (12.50) $ (12.50)
=========== =========== =========== =========== ===========
OTHER OPERATING DATA
Net cash provided by
operating activities $ 563,600 $ 1,337,700 $ 1,183,300 $ 1,221,800 $ 1,173,000
EBITDA(1) 963,600 1,222,400 1,214,900 1,155,500 1,212,800
EBITDA to revenues 43.2% 46.4% 46.7% 44.9% 46.6%
Total debt to EBITDA .3x .1x -- -- --
Capital expenditures $ 78,700 $ 111,800 $ 154,000 $ 503,000 $ 408,200
</TABLE>
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
As of December 31,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BALANCE SHEET DATA 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
---- ---- ---- ---- ----
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C>
Total assets $ 2,782,600 $ 3,180,000 $ 3,513,000 $ 3,979,800 $ 4,118,200
Total debt 250,000 100,000 -- -- --
General partners' deficit (50,900) (47,600) (42,800) (38,100) (35,700)
Limited partners' capital 2,339,900 2,670,800 3,152,000 3,617,100 3,855,300
</TABLE>
- ------------------------
(1) Operating income before depreciation and amortization. The Partnership
measures its financial performance by its EBITDA, among other items.
Based on its experience in the cable television industry, the Partnership
believes that EBITDA and related measures of cash flow serve as important
financial analysis tools for measuring and comparing cable television
companies in several areas, such as liquidity, operating performance and
leverage. EBITDA should not be considered by the reader as an alternative
to net income as an indicator of the Partnership's financial performance
or as an alternative to cash flows as a measure of liquidity.
28
<PAGE> 29
ITEM 7. MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND
RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
INTRODUCTION
Compliance with the rules adopted by the Federal
Communications Commission (the "FCC") to implement the rate regulation
provisions of the 1992 Cable Act has had a significant negative impact on the
Partnership's revenues and cash flow. Based on certain FCC decisions that have
been released, however, the Partnership's management presently believes that
revenues for 1995 reflect the impact of the 1992 Cable Act in all material
respects. Moreover, recent policy decisions by the FCC make it more likely that
in the future the Partnership will be permitted to increase regulated service
rates in response to specified cost increases, although certain costs may
continue to rise at a rate in excess of that which the Partnership will be
permitted to pass on to its customers. The FCC has recently adopted a procedure
under which cable operators may file abbreviated cost of service showings for
system rebuilds and upgrades, the result of which would be a permitted increase
in regulated rates to allow recovery of a portion of those costs. The FCC has
also proposed a new procedure for the pass-through of increases in inflation and
certain external costs, such as programming costs, under which cable operators
could increase rates based on actual and anticipated cost increases for the
coming year. In addition to these FCC actions, on February 8, 1996, President
Clinton signed into law the 1996 Telecom Act. The 1996 Telecom Act revises,
among other things, certain rate regulation provisions of the 1992 Cable Act.
Given events since the enactment of the 1992 Cable Act, there can also be no
assurance as to what, if any, future action may be taken by the FCC, Congress or
any other regulatory authority or court, or the effect thereof on the
Partnership's business. Accordingly, the Partnership's historical annual
financial results as described below are not necessarily indicative of future
performance. See "Legislation and Regulation" and "Liquidity and Capital
Resources."
RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
1995 COMPARED TO 1994
The Partnership's revenues increased from $2,574,000 to
$2,603,700, or by 1.2%, for the year ended December 31, 1995 compared to 1994.
Of the $29,700 increase, $89,300 was due to increases in regulated service rates
permitted under the 1992 Cable Act that were implemented by the Partnership in
April 1995, $25,800 was due to increases in the number of subscriptions for
services, $15,300 was due to increases in other revenue producing items
consisting primarily of advertising sales revenue and $5,400 was due to
increases in unregulated rates charged for premium services implemented during
the fourth quarter of 1994. These increases were partially offset by rate
decreases implemented in September 1994 to comply with the 1992 Cable Act,
estimated by the Partnership to be approximately $106,100. As of December 31,
1995, the Partnership had 6,784 homes subscribing to cable service and 2,111
premium service units.
Service costs increased from $756,900 to $791,800, or by 4.6%,
for the year ended December 31, 1995 compared to 1994. Service costs represent
costs directly attributable to providing cable services to customers. Of the
$34,900 increase, $27,500 was due to increases in programming fees charged by
program suppliers (including primary satellite fees) and $23,100 was due to
increases in franchise fees. These increases were partially offset by a $7,900
decrease in personnel costs and a $5,000 increase in the capitalization of labor
and overhead expense resulting from more capital projects during 1995. The
increase in programming expense was also due to expanded programming usage
relating to channel line-up restructuring and to retransmission consent
arrangements implemented to comply with the 1992 Cable Act.
General and administrative expenses decreased from $245,500 to
$233,800, or by 4.8%, for the year ended December 31, 1995 compared to 1994. Of
the $11,700 decrease, $19,600 was due to a decrease in marketing expense,
$12,200 was due to a decrease in bad debt expense, $5,500 was due to a
29
<PAGE> 30
decrease in advertising sales expense and $5,400 was due to lower insurance
premiums. These decreases were partially offset by a $19,100 increase in
professional fees and an $11,800 increase in personnel costs.
Management fees and reimbursed expenses decreased from $416,100
to $365,300, or by 12.2%, for the year ended December 31, 1995 compared to 1994.
Of the $50,800 decrease, $52,300 was due to a decrease in reimbursed expenses
allocated by the Corporate General Partner including lower personnel costs,
office rent, property taxes, postage expense, telephone expense and costs
associated with implementation of the 1992 Cable Act. Management fees increased
by $1,500, or 1.2%, in direct relation to increased revenues as described above.
Depreciation and amortization expense increased from $368,000 to
$694,200, or by 88.6%, for the year ended December 31, 1995 compared to 1994.
The increase was primarily due to the Partnership rebuilding its plant during
1995. Accordingly, the estimated remaining life of existing plant has been
reduced and depreciation has been accelerated. The impact of this change in
accounting estimate on depreciation expense was approximately $314,000 for the
year ended December 31, 1995. Other increases resulted from asset additions
related to upgrades of the Partnership's plant.
Operating income decreased from $787,500 to $518,600, or by
34.2%, for the year ended December 31, 1995 compared to 1994, principally due to
increases in depreciation and amortization expense as described above.
Interest income increased from $66,400 to $109,000, or by 64.2%,
for the year ended December 31, 1995 compared to 1994 as a result of higher cash
balances available for investment and higher interest rates earned on invested
funds.
Due to the factors described above, the Partnership's net income
decreased from $847,800 to $618,600, or by 27.0%, for the year ended December
31, 1995 compared to 1994.
1994 COMPARED TO 1993
The Partnership's revenues decreased from $2,601,600 to
$2,574,000, or by 1.1%, for the year ended December 31, 1994 compared to 1993.
Of the $27,600 decrease, $52,400 was estimated to be due to decreases in rates
charged subscribers for basic cable service mandated by the 1992 Cable Act,
offset by increases of $19,600 in other revenue producing items and $5,200 due
to increases in the number of subscriptions for services. As of December 31,
1994, the Partnership had 6,912 homes subscribing to cable service and 2,325
premium service units.
Service costs decreased from $778,300 to $756,900, or by 2.7%,
for the year ended December 31, 1994 compared to 1993. Service costs represent
costs directly attributable to providing cable services to customers. Of the
$21,400 decrease, $52,600 was due to increased capitalization of labor and
overhead expense resulting from more capital projects during 1994 and $10,200
related to decreased repair and maintenance expense. These decreases were
partially offset by an increase of $15,600 in programming fees (including
primary satellite fees) due to higher rates charged by program suppliers and to
expanded program usage due to channel line-up restructuring and to
retransmission consent arrangements implemented to comply with the 1992 Cable
Act. Other increases included $14,900 in personnel costs and $12,500 in
franchise fees.
General and administrative expenses increased from $223,200 to
$245,500, or by 10.0%, for the year ended December 31, 1994 compared to 1993. Of
the $22,300 increase, $18,200 was due to an increase in bad debt expense,
$14,500 to higher insurance premiums and $7,700 to an increase in marketing
costs. These increases were partially offset by an $11,100 decrease in telephone
expense, a $4,500 increase in capitalization of labor and overhead expense and a
$3,900 decrease in personnel costs.
30
<PAGE> 31
Management fees and reimbursed expenses increased from $385,200
to $416,100, or by 8.0%, for the year ended December 31, 1994 compared to 1993.
Reimbursed expenses increased by $32,300 in 1994 as compared to the previous
year due to higher allocated personnel costs, utility costs, marketing expense
and costs related to compliance with the 1992 Cable Act. This increase was
partially offset by a $1,400 decrease in management fees resulting from lower
revenues.
Depreciation and amortization expense remained relatively
unchanged from the prior year at $368,000 for the year ended December 31, 1994.
Operating income decreased from $847,700 to $787,500, or by
7.1%, for the year ended December 31, 1994 compared to 1993, principally due to
a decrease in revenues and an increase in reimbursed expenses allocated by the
Corporate General Partner.
Interest expense decreased from $17,800 to $6,100, or by 65.7%,
for the year ended December 31, 1994 compared to 1993. The decrease was due to
repayment of the Partnership's note payable on March 31, 1993. Interest income
increased from $34,100 to $66,400, or by 94.7%, for the year ended December 31,
1994 compared to 1993 as a result of higher cash balances available for
investment and higher interest rates during 1994.
Due to the factors described above, the Partnership's net income
decreased from $864,000 to $847,800, or by 1.9%, for the year ended December 31,
1994 compared to 1993.
DISTRIBUTIONS TO PARTNERS
Partnership operations generated income exclusive of
depreciation and amortization of $1,231,200, $1,215,800 and $1,312,800 in 1993,
1994 and 1995. As provided in the Partnership Agreement, distributions to
partners are funded from such amounts after providing for working capital and
other liquidity requirements, including debt service and capital expenditures
not otherwise funded by borrowings. In 1993, 1994 and 1995 the Partnership paid
distributions of $378,000 to its partners.
LIQUIDITY AND CAPITAL RESOURCES
The FCC's amended rate regulation rules were implemented during
the quarter ended September 30, 1994. Compliance with these rules has had a
negative impact on the Partnership's revenues and cash flow. See "Legislation
and Regulation."
The Partnership's primary objective, having invested its net
offering proceeds in cable systems, is to distribute to its partners all
available cash flow from operations and proceeds from the sale of cable systems,
if any, after providing for expenses, debt service, and capital requirements
relating to the expansion, improvement and upgrade of its cable systems. At
December 31, 1995, the Partnership had no debt outstanding.
The Partnership depends on cash flow from operations to meet
operating requirements and fund necessary capital expenditures. Although the
Partnership currently has a significant cash balance, there can be no assurance
that the Partnership's cash flow will be adequate to meet its future liquidity
requirements which include planned expenditures of approximately $2,463,000 to
rebuild and upgrade its existing cable system beginning in 1996. As a result,
the Partnership intends, if possible, to maintain cash reserves. In the future,
the Partnership may also need to borrow, if such borrowings are available on
terms acceptable to the Partnership, of which there can be no assurance.
31
<PAGE> 32
The Partnership paid distributions totaling $378,000 during the
year ended December 31, 1995, and expects to continue to pay distributions at
this level during 1996. There can, however, be no assurances regarding the
level, timing or continuation of future distributions beyond 1996.
1995 VS. 1994
Cash provided by operating activities decreased by $48,800 from
$1,221,800 in 1994 to $1,173,000 for the year ended December 31, 1995. The
Partnership used $99,400 more cash to pay amounts owed to the General Partner
and other affiliates in 1995. Changes in receivables and prepaid expenses used
$46,500 more cash in 1995 than in 1994. Partnership operations generated $97,000
more cash in 1995 after adding back non-cash depreciation and amortization
charges.
The Partnership used $50,500 less cash in investing activities
during 1995 due to a $94,800 decrease in expenditures for tangible assets which
was partially offset by a $44,300 increase in expenditures for intangible
assets.
Operating income before depreciation and amortization (EBITDA)
as a percentage of revenues increased from 44.9% during 1994 to 46.6% in 1995.
The change was primarily caused by higher revenues and decreased reimbursed
expenses. EBITDA increased from $1,155,500 to $1,212,800, or by 5.0%, during
1995 compared to 1994.
1994 VS. 1993
Cash provided by operating activities increased by $38,500 from
$1,183,300 in 1993 to $1,221,800 for the year ended December 31, 1994. The
Partnership used $50,000 less cash to pay amounts owed to the General Partner
and other affiliates in 1994. Partnership operations generated $15,400 less
income in 1994 after adding back non-cash depreciation and amortization charges.
Changes in other operating items (receivables and prepaids) provided $3,900
additional cash in 1994.
The Partnership used $345,200 more cash in investing activities
during 1994 due to a $349,000 increase in expenditures for tangible assets which
was partially offset by a $3,800 decrease in expenditures for intangible assets.
The Partnership used $100,000 less cash in financing activities during 1994 for
the repayment of debt.
Operating income before depreciation and amortization (EBITDA)
as a percentage of revenues decreased from 46.7% during 1993 to 44.9% in 1994.
The change was primarily caused by lower revenues and increased reimbursed
expenses. EBITDA decreased from $1,214,900 to $1,155,500, or by 4.9%, during
1994 compared to 1993.
RECENT ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS
In March 1995, the FASB issued Statement No. 121, Accounting for
the Impairment of Long-Lived Assets and for Long-Lived Assets to be Disposed Of,
which requires impairment losses to be recorded on long-lived assets used in
operations when indicators of impairment are present and the undiscounted cash
flows estimated to be generated by those assets are less than the assets'
carrying amount. In such cases, impairment losses are to be recorded based on
estimated fair value, which would generally approximate discounted cash flows.
Statement 121 also addresses the accounting for long-lived assets that are
expected to be disposed of. The Partnership will adopt Statement 121 in the
first quarter of 1996 and, based on current circumstances, does not believe the
effect of adoption will be material.
32
<PAGE> 33
INFLATION
Certain of the Partnership's expenses, such as those for wages
and benefits, equipment repair and replacement, and billing and marketing
generally increase with inflation. However, the Partnership does not believe
that its financial results have been, or will be, adversely affected by
inflation in a material way, provided that the Partnership is able to increase
its service rates periodically, of which there can be no assurance. See
"Legislation and Regulation."
ITEM 8. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA
The financial statements and related financial information
required to be filed hereunder are indexed on Page F-1.
Item 9. CHANGES IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON
ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE
Not applicable
33
<PAGE> 34
PART III
ITEM 10. DIRECTORS AND EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE REGISTRANT
The General Partners of the Partnership may be considered, for
certain purposes, the functional equivalents of directors and executive
officers. The Corporate General Partner is Enstar Communications Corporation,
and Robert T. Graff, Jr. is the Individual General Partner. As part of Falcon
Cablevision's September 30, 1988 acquisition of the Corporate General Partner,
Falcon Cablevision received an option to acquire Mr. Graff's interest as
Individual General Partner of the Partnership and other affiliated cable limited
partnerships that he previously co-sponsored with the Corporate General Partner,
and Mr. Graff received the right to cause Falcon Cablevision to acquire such
interests. These arrangements were modified and extended in an amendment dated
September 10, 1993 pursuant to which, among other things, the Corporate General
Partner obtained the option to acquire Mr. Graff's interest in lieu of the
purchase right described above which had been previously granted to Falcon
Cablevision.
Since its incorporation in Georgia in 1982, the Corporate
General Partner has been engaged in the cable/telecommunications business, both
as a general partner of 15 limited partnerships formed to own and operate cable
television systems and through a wholly-owned operating subsidiary. As of
December 31, 1995, the Corporate General Partner managed cable television
systems serving approximately 126,200 Subscribers.
Falcon Cablevision was formed in 1984 as a California limited
partnership and has been engaged in the ownership and operation of cable
television systems since that time. Falcon Cablevision is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of FHGLP. FHGI is the sole general partner of FHGLP. FHGLP currently
operates cable systems through a series of affiliated limited partnerships,
including Falcon Cablevision, Falcon Cable Systems Company, Falcon Telecable,
Falcon Cable Media, Falcon Classic Cable Income Properties, Falcon First, Inc.,
Falcon Community Cable and Falcon Video Communications, and also controls the
general partners of the 15 limited partnerships which operate under the Enstar
name (including the Partnership). Although these limited partnerships are
affiliated with FHGLP, their assets are owned by legal entities separate from
the Partnership.
Set forth below is certain general information about the
Directors and Executive Officers of the Corporate General Partner, all of whom
have served in such capacities since October 1988:
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
NAME POSITION
- ---- --------
<S> <C>
Marc B. Nathanson Director, Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President
Frank J. Intiso Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer
Stanley S. Itskowitch Director, Executive Vice President and General Counsel
Michael K. Menerey Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
</TABLE>
MARC B. NATHANSON, 50, has been Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer
and President of FHGI and its predecessors since 1975. Prior to 1975, Mr.
Nathanson was Vice President of Marketing for Teleprompter Corporation, at that
time the largest multiple-system cable operator in the United States. He also
held executive positions with Warner Cable and Cypress Communications
Corporation. He is a former President of the California Cable Television
Association and a member of Cable Pioneers. He is currently a Director of the
National Cable Television Association ("NCTA") and serves on its Executive
Committee. At the 1986 NCTA convention, Mr. Nathanson was honored by being named
the recipient of the Vanguard
34
<PAGE> 35
Award for outstanding contributions to the growth and development of the cable
television industry. Mr. Nathanson is a 26-year veteran of the cable television
industry. He is a founder of the Cable Television Administration and Marketing
Society ("CTAM") and the Southern California Cable Television Association. Mr.
Nathanson is also a Director of TV Por Cable Nacional, S.A. de C.V. Mr.
Nathanson is also Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Falcon
International Communications, LLC ("FIC"). Mr. Nathanson was appointed by
President Clinton and confirmed by the U.S. Senate for a three year term on the
Board of Governors of International Broadcasting of the United States
Information Agency.
FRANK J. INTISO, 49, has been Executive Vice President and Chief Operating
Officer of FHGI and its predecessors since 1982. Mr. Intiso has been President
and Chief Operating Officer of Falcon Cable Group since its inception. Mr.
Intiso is responsible for the day-to-day operations of all cable television
systems under the management of FHGI. Mr. Intiso has a Master's Degree in
Business Administration from the University of California, Los Angeles, and is a
Certified Public Accountant. He serves as chair of the California Cable
Television Association, and is on the boards of Cable Advertising Bureau, Cable
In The Classroom, Community Antenna Television Association and California Cable
Television Association. He is a member of the American Institute of Certified
Public Accountants, the American Marketing Association, the American Management
Association, and the Southern California Cable Television Association.
STANLEY S. ITSKOWITCH, 57, has been a Director of FHGI and its predecessors
since 1975, and Senior Vice President and General Counsel from 1987 to 1990 and
has been Executive Vice President and General Counsel since February 1990. He
has been President and Chief Executive Officer of F.C. Funding, Inc. (formerly
Fallek Chemical Company), which is a marketer of chemical products, since 1980.
He is a Certified Public Accountant and a former tax partner in the New York
office of Touche Ross & Co. (now Deloitte & Touche). He has a J.D. Degree and an
L.L.M. Degree in Tax from New York University School of Law. Mr. Itskowitch is
also Executive Vice President and General Counsel of FIC.
MICHAEL K. MENEREY, 44, has been Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of FHGI
and its predecessors since 1984 and has been Chief Financial Officer and
Secretary of Falcon Cable Group since its inception. Mr. Menerey is a Certified
Public Accountant and is a member of the American Institute of Certified Public
Accountants and the California Society of Certified Public Accountants.
CERTAIN KEY PERSONNEL
The following sets forth, as of December 31, 1995, biographical
information about certain officers of FHGI and Falcon Cable Group, a division of
FHGLP, who share certain responsibilities with the officers of the Corporate
General Partner with respect to the operation and management of the Partnership.
JAMES V. ASHJIAN, 51, has been Controller of FHGI and its predecessors since
October 1985 and Controller of Falcon Cable Group since its inception. Mr.
Ashjian is a Certified Public Accountant and was a partner in Bider &
Montgomery, a Los Angeles-based CPA firm, from 1978 to 1983, and self-employed
from 1983 to October 1985. He is a member of the American Institute of Certified
Public Accountants and the California Society of Certified Public Accountants.
LYNNE A. BUENING, 42, has been Vice President of Programming of Falcon Cable
Group since November 1993. From 1989 to 1993, she served as Director of
Programming for Viacom Cable, a division of Viacom International Inc. Prior to
that, Ms. Buening held programming and marketing positions in the cable,
broadcast, and newspaper industries.
OVANDO COWLES, 42, has been Vice President of Advertising Sales and Production
of Falcon Cable Group since January 1992. From 1988 to 1991, he served as a
Director of Advertising Sales and Production at
35
<PAGE> 36
Cencom Cable Television in Pasadena, California. He was an Advertising Sales
Account Executive at Choice Television from 1985 to 1988. From 1983 to 1985, Mr.
Cowles served in various sales and advertising positions.
HOWARD J. GAN, 49, has been Vice President of Corporate Development and
Government Affairs of FHGI and its predecessors since 1988 and Vice President of
Corporate Development and Government Affairs of Falcon Cable Group since its
inception. He was General Counsel at Malarkey-Taylor Associates, a Washington,
DC based telecommunications consulting firm, from 1986 to 1988. He was Vice
President and General Counsel at the Cable Television Information Center from
1978 to 1983. In addition, he was an attorney and an acting Branch Chief of the
Federal Communications Commission's Cable Television Bureau from 1975 to 1978.
R.W. ("SKIP") HARRIS, 48, has been Vice President of Marketing of Falcon Cable
Group since June 1991. He is a member of the CTAM Premium Television Committee.
Mr. Harris was National Director of Affiliate Marketing for the Disney Channel
from 1985 to 1991. He was also a sales manager, regional marketing manager and
director of marketing for Cox Cable Communications from 1978 to 1985.
JOE A. JOHNSON, 51, has been Executive Vice President - Operations of FHGI since
September 1995, and between January 1992 and that date was Senior Vice President
of Falcon Cable Group. He was a Divisional Vice President of FHGI between 1989
and 1992 and a Divisional Vice President of Falcon Cable Group from its
inception until 1992. From 1982 to 1989, he held the positions of Vice President
and Director of Operations for Sacramento Cable Television, Group W Cable of
Chicago and Warner Amex. From 1975 to 1982, Mr. Johnson held Cable System and
Regional Manager positions with Warner Amex and Teleprompter.
JON W. LUNSFORD, 36, has been Vice President - Finance and Corporate Development
FHGI since September 1994. From 1991 to 1994 he served as Director of Corporate
Finance at Continental Cablevision, Inc. Prior to 1991, Mr. Lunsford was a Vice
President with Crestar Bank.
JOAN SCULLY, 60, has been Vice President of Human Resources of FHGI and its
predecessors since May 1988 and Vice President of Human Resources of Falcon
Cable Group since its inception. From 1987 to May 1988, she was self-employed as
a Management Consultant to cable and transportation companies. She served as
Director of Human Resources of a Los Angeles based cable company from 1985
through 1987. Prior to that time she served as a human resource executive in the
entertainment and aerospace industries. Ms. Scully holds a Masters Degree in
Human Resources Management from Pepperdine University.
MICHAEL D. SINGPIEL, 48, was appointed Vice President of Operations of Falcon
Cable Group in March 1996. Mr. Singpiel joined Falcon in October 1992 as
Divisional Vice President of Falcon's Eastern Division. From 1990 to 1992, Mr.
Singpiel was Vice President of C-Tec Cable Systems in Michigan. Mr. Singpiel
held various positions with Comcast in New Jersey and Michigan from 1980 to
1990.
RAYMOND J. TYNDALL, 48, has been Vice President of Engineering of Falcon Cable
Group since October 1989. From 1975 to September 1989 he held various technical
positions with Choice TV and its predecessors. From 1967 to 1975, he held
various technical positions with Sammons Communications. He is a certified
National Association of Radio and Television Engineering ("NARTE") engineer in
lightwave, microwave, satellite and broadband.
In addition, Falcon Cable Group has six Divisional Vice Presidents who
are based in the field. They are Ron L. Hall, Michael E. Kemph, Nicholas A.
Nocchi, Larry L. Ott, Robert S. Smith and Victor A. Wible.
36
<PAGE> 37
Each director of the Corporate General Partner is elected to a
one-year term at the annual shareholder meeting to serve until the next annual
shareholder meeting and thereafter until his respective successor is elected and
qualified. Officers are appointed by and serve at the discretion of the
directors of the Corporate General Partner.
ITEM 11. EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
MANAGEMENT FEE
The Partnership has a management agreement (the "Management
Agreement") with Enstar Cable Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of the
Corporate General Partner (the "Manager"), pursuant to which Enstar Cable
Corporation manages the Partnership's systems and provides all operational
support for the activities of the Partnership. For these services, the Manager
receives a management fee of 5% of the Partnership's gross revenues, excluding
revenues from the sale of cable television systems or franchises, calculated and
paid monthly. In addition, the Partnership reimburses the Manager for certain
operating expenses incurred by the Manager in the day-to-day operation of the
Partnership's cable systems. The Management Agreement also requires the
Partnership to indemnify the Manager (including its officers, employees, agents
and shareholders) against loss or expense, absent negligence or deliberate
breach by the Manager of the Management Agreement. The Management Agreement is
terminable by the Partnership upon sixty (60) days written notice to the
Manager. The Manager has engaged FHGLP to provide certain management services
for the Partnership and pays FHGLP a portion of the management fees it receives
in consideration of such services and reimburses FHGLP for expenses incurred by
FHGLP on its behalf. The Corporate General Partner also performs certain
supervisory and administrative services for the Partnership, for which it is
reimbursed.
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 1995, the Partnership was
charged approximately $130,200 of management fees and $235,100 of reimbursed
expenses. In addition, certain programming services are purchased through Falcon
Cablevision. The Partnership paid Falcon Cablevision approximately $504,000 for
these programming services for fiscal year 1995.
PARTICIPATION IN DISTRIBUTIONS
The General Partners are entitled to share in distributions
from, and profit and losses in, the Partnership. See Item 5, "Market for
Registrant's Equity Securities and Related Security Holder Matters."
ITEM 12. SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS
AND MANAGEMENT
As of March 3, 1996, the common stock of FHGI was owned as
follows: 78.5% by Falcon Cable Trust, a grantor trust of which Marc B. Nathanson
is trustee and he and members of his family are beneficiaries; 20% by Greg A.
Nathanson; and 1.5% by Stanley S. Itskowitch. In connection with the formation
of Falcon Community Cable, on August 15, 1989, FHGI issued to Hellman & Friedman
Capital Partners, A California Limited Partnership ("H&F"), a $1,293,357
convertible debenture due 1999 convertible under certain circumstances into 10%
of the common stock of FHGI and entitling H&F to elect one director to the board
of directors of FHGI. H&F elected Marc B. Nathanson pursuant to such right. In
1991 FHGI issued to Hellman & Friedman Capital Partners II, A California Limited
Partnership ("H&FII"), additional convertible debentures due 1999 in the
aggregate amount of $2,006,198 convertible under certain circumstances into
approximately 6.3% of the common stock of FHGI and entitling H&FII to elect one
director to the board of directors of FHGI. As of March 3, 1996, H&FII had not
exercised this
37
<PAGE> 38
right. FHGLP also held 12.1% of the interests in the General Partner, and Falcon
Cable Trust, Frank Intiso, H&FII and two other individuals held 58.9%, 12.1%,
16.3% and 0.6% of the General Partner, respectively. Such interests entitle the
holders thereof to an allocable share of cash distributions and profits and
losses of the General Partner in proportion to their ownership. Greg A.
Nathanson is Marc B. Nathanson's brother.
As of March 3, 1996, Marc B. Nathanson and members of his family
owned, directly or indirectly, outstanding partnership interests (comprising
both general partner interests and limited partner interests) aggregating
approximately 0.46% of Falcon Classic Cable Income Properties, L.P., 2.58% of
Falcon Video Communications and 30.0% of Falcon Cable Systems Company. In
accordance with the respective partnership agreements of the partnerships
mentioned above, after the return of capital to and the receipt of certain
preferred returns by the limited partners of such partnerships, FHGLP and
certain of its officers and directors had rights to future profits greater than
their ownership interests of capital in such partnerships.
On March 29, 1993, FHGLP was organized to effect the
consolidation of certain cable television businesses, including Falcon
Cablevision, Falcon Telecable, Falcon Cable Media and Falcon Community Cable,
into FHGLP. At the same time FHGLP assumed the cable system management
operations of FHGI. On December 28, 1995, FHGLP completed the acquisition of all
of the direct and indirect ownership interests in Falcon First, Inc., ("First"),
that it did not previously own. First was an affiliated entity prior to December
28, 1995. The ownership interests in FHGLP are as follows: Falcon management,
directors and affiliated individuals and entities: 38.2% (including 35.3% owned
by Marc B. Nathanson and members of his family directly or indirectly), H&F and
H&FII: 35.9%, Leeway & Co.: 10.9%, Boston Ventures Limited Partnership II and
Boston Ventures II-A Investment Corporation: 6.9%, Falcon First Communications,
LLC: 2.1% and other institutional investors, individuals and trusts: 6.0%.
ITEM 13. CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
In March 1993, FHGLP, a new entity, assumed the management
services operations of FHGI. Effective March 29, 1993, FHGLP began receiving
management fees and reimbursed expenses which had previously been paid by the
Partnership, as well as the other affiliated entities mentioned above, to FHGI.
The management of FHGLP is substantially the same as that of FHGI.
FHGLP also manages the operations of Falcon Cable Systems
Company, Falcon Classic Cable Income Properties, L.P., Falcon Video
Communications, L.P., and, through its management of the operation of Falcon
Cablevision (a subsidiary of FHGLP), the partnerships of which Enstar
Communications Corporation is the Corporate General Partner, including the
Partnership. On September 30, 1988, Falcon Cablevision acquired all of the
outstanding stock of Enstar Communications Corporation. Certain members of
management of the General Partner have also been involved in the management of
other cable ventures. FHGLP contemplates entering into other cable ventures,
including ventures similar to the Partnership.
Conflicts of interest involving acquisitions and dispositions of
cable television systems could adversely affect Unitholders. For instance, the
economic interests of management in other affiliated partnerships are different
from those in the Partnership and this may create conflicts relating to which
acquisition opportunities are preserved for which partnerships.
These affiliations subject FHGLP and the General Partner and
their management to certain conflicts of interest. Such conflicts of interest
relate to the time and services management will devote to the
38
<PAGE> 39
Partnership's affairs and to the acquisition and disposition of cable television
systems. Management or its affiliates may establish and manage other entities
which could impose additional conflicts of interest.
FHGLP and the Corporate General Partner will resolve all
conflicts of interest in accordance with their fiduciary duties.
FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY AND INDEMNIFICATION OF THE GENERAL PARTNERS
A general partner is accountable to a limited partnership as a
fiduciary and consequently must exercise good faith and integrity in handling
partnership affairs. Where the question has arisen, some courts have held that a
limited partner may institute legal action on his own behalf and on behalf of
all other similarly situated limited partners (a class action) to recover
damages for a breach of fiduciary duty by a general partner, or on behalf of the
partnership (a partnership derivative action) to recover damages from third
parties. Section 14-9-1001 of the Georgia Revised Uniform Limited Partnership
Act also allows a partner to maintain a partnership derivative action if general
partners with authority to do so have refused to bring the action or if an
effort to cause those general partners to bring the action is not likely to
succeed. Certain cases decided by federal courts have recognized the right of a
limited partner to bring such actions under the Securities and Exchange
Commission's Rule 10b-5 for recovery of damages resulting from a breach of
fiduciary duty by a general partner involving fraud, deception or manipulation
in connection with the limited partner's purchase or sale of partnership units.
The partnership agreement provides that the General Partners
will be indemnified by the Partnership for acts performed within the scope of
their authority under the partnership agreement if such general partner (i)
acted in good faith and in a manner that it reasonably believed to be in, or not
opposed to, the best interests of the Partnership and the partners, and (ii) had
no reasonable grounds to believe that its conduct was negligent. In addition,
the partnership agreement provides that the General Partners will not be liable
to the Partnership or its limited partners for errors in judgment or other acts
or omissions not amounting to negligence or misconduct. Therefore, limited
partners will have a more limited right of action than they would have absent
such provisions. In addition, the Partnership maintains insurance on behalf of
the General Partner, and such other persons as the General Partner shall
determine against any liability that may be asserted against or expense that may
be incurred by such person and against which the Partnership would be entitled
to indemnify such person pursuant to the Partnership Agreement. To the extent
that the exculpatory provisions purport to include indemnification for
liabilities arising under the Securities Act of 1933, it is the opinion of the
Securities and Exchange Commission that such indemnification is contrary to
public policy and therefore unenforceable.
39
<PAGE> 40
PART IV
ITEM 14. EXHIBITS, FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES
AND REPORTS ON FORM 8-K
(a) 1. Financial Statements
Reference is made to the Index to Financial Statements on page
F-1.
(a) 2. Financial Statement Schedules
Reference is made to the Index to Financial Statements on page
F-1.
(a) 3. Exhibits
Reference is made to the Index to Exhibits on Page E-1.
(b) Reports on Form 8-K
None
40
<PAGE> 41
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15 (d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to
be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized, on March
25, 1996.
ENSTAR INCOME PROGRAM II-1, L.P.
By: Enstar Communications Corporation,
Corporate General Partner
By: /s/ Marc B. Nathanson
------------------------------
Marc B. Nathanson
President
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, this report has been signed by the following persons on behalf of the
registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Signatures Title(*) Date
---------- -------- ----
<S> <C> <C>
/s/ Marc B. Nathanson Chairman of the Board, March 25, 1996
- -------------------------
Marc B. Nathanson Chief Executive Officer
and President (Principal
Executive Officer)
/s/ Michael K. Menerey Chief Financial Officer, March 25, 1996
- -------------------------
Michael K. Menerey Secretary and Director
(Principal Financial and
Accounting Officer)
/s/ Frank J. Intiso Chief Operating Officer, March 25, 1996
- -------------------------
Frank J. Intiso Executive Vice President
and Director
/s/ Stanley S. Itskowitch Executive Vice President, March 25, 1996
- ----------------------------
Stanley S. Itskowitch General Counsel and
Director
</TABLE>
(*) Indicates position(s) held with Enstar Communications Corporation, the
Corporate General Partner of the registrant.
41
<PAGE> 42
INDEX TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
PAGE
----
<S> <C>
Report of Independent Auditors F-2
Balance Sheets - December 31, 1994 and 1995 F-3
Financial Statements for each of the three years in the period ended December
31, 1995:
Statements of Income F-4
Statements of Partnership Capital (Deficit) F-5
Statements of Cash Flows F-6
Summary of Accounting Policies F-7
Notes to Financial Statements F-9
</TABLE>
All schedules have been omitted because they are either not required, not
applicable or the information has otherwise been supplied.
F-1
<PAGE> 43
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
Partners
Enstar Income Program II-1, L.P. (A Georgia Limited Partnership)
We have audited the balance sheets of Enstar Income Program II-1, L.P. (A
Georgia Limited Partnership) as of December 31, 1994 and 1995, and the related
statements of income, partnership capital (deficit), and cash flows for the
years then ended. These financial statements are the responsibility of the
Partnership's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these
financial statements based on our audit. The statements of income, partnership
capital (deficit), and cash flows of Enstar Income Program II-1, L.P. for the
year ended December 31, 1993 were audited by other auditors whose report dated
February 16, 1994, expressed an unqualified opinion on those financial
statements.
We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material
misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting
the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes
assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.
We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in
all material respects, the financial position of Enstar Income Program II-1,
L.P. at December 31, 1994 and 1995, and the results of its operations and its
cash flows for the years then ended in conformity with generally accepted
accounting principles.
/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
Los Angeles, California
February 20, 1996
F-2
<PAGE> 44
ENSTAR INCOME PROGRAM II-1, L.P.
BALANCE SHEETS
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
December 31,
-------------------------------
ASSETS: 1994 1995
----------- -----------
<S> <C> <C>
Cash and cash equivalents $ 2,327,500 $ 2,657,300
Accounts receivable less allowance of $7,200 and 19,100 48,100
$5,500 for possible losses
Prepaid expenses and other 7,800 16,400
Property, plant and equipment, less accumulated
depreciation and amortization 1,594,100 1,322,200
Franchise cost, less accumulated amortization
of $3,800 and $8,800 22,900 63,500
Organization costs and deferred charges, net 8,400 10,700
----------- -----------
$ 3,979,800 $ 4,118,200
=========== ===========
LIABILITIES AND PARTNERSHIP CAPITAL
-----------------------------------
LIABILITIES:
Accounts payable $ 195,200 $ 186,800
Due to affiliates 205,600 111,800
----------- -----------
TOTAL LIABILITIES 400,800 298,600
----------- -----------
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
PARTNERSHIP CAPITAL (DEFICIT)
General partners (38,100) (35,700)
Limited partners 3,617,100 3,855,300
----------- -----------
TOTAL PARTNERSHIP CAPITAL 3,579,000 3,819,600
----------- -----------
$ 3,979,800 $ 4,118,200
=========== ===========
</TABLE>
See accompanying summary of accounting
policies and notes to financial statements.
F-3
<PAGE> 45
ENSTAR INCOME PROGRAM II-1, L.P.
STATEMENTS OF INCOME
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Year Ended December 31,
-------------------------------------------
1993 1994 1995
----------- ----------- -----------
<S> <C> <C> <C>
REVENUES $ 2,601,600 $ 2,574,000 $ 2,603,700
----------- ----------- -----------
OPERATING EXPENSES:
Service costs 778,300 756,900 791,800
General and administrative expenses 223,200 245,500 233,800
General Partner management fees
and reimbursed expenses 385,200 416,100 365,300
Depreciation and amortization 367,200 368,000 694,200
----------- ----------- -----------
1,753,900 1,786,500 2,085,100
----------- ----------- -----------
Operating income 847,700 787,500 518,600
----------- ----------- -----------
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE):
Interest expense (17,800) (6,100) (9,000)
Interest income 34,100 66,400 109,000
----------- ----------- -----------
16,300 60,300 100,000
----------- ----------- -----------
NET INCOME $ 864,000 $ 847,800 $ 618,600
=========== =========== ===========
NET INCOME PER UNIT OF LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP INTEREST $ 28.57 $ 28.04 $ 20.46
=========== =========== ===========
WEIGHTED AVERAGE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
UNITS OUTSTANDING DURING THE YEAR 29,936 29,936 29,936
----------- ----------- -----------
</TABLE>
See accompanying summary of accounting
policies and notes to financial statements.
F-4
<PAGE> 46
ENSTAR INCOME PROGRAM II-1, L.P.
STATEMENTS OF PARTNERSHIP CAPITAL (DEFICIT)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
General Limited
Partners Partners Total
----------- ----------- -----------
<S> <C> <C> <C>
PARTNERSHIP CAPITAL (DEFICIT),
January 1, 1993 $ (47,600) $ 2,670,800 $ 2,623,200
Distributions to partners (3,800) (374,200) (378,000)
Net income for year 8,600 855,400 864,000
----------- ----------- -----------
PARTNERSHIP CAPITAL (DEFICIT),
December 31, 1993 (42,800) 3,152,000 3,109,200
Distributions to partners (3,800) (374,200) (378,000)
Net income for year 8,500 839,300 847,800
----------- ----------- -----------
PARTNERSHIP CAPITAL (DEFICIT),
December 31, 1994 (38,100) 3,617,100 3,579,000
Distributions to partners (3,800) (374,200) (378,000)
Net income for year 6,200 612,400 618,600
----------- ----------- -----------
PARTNERSHIP CAPITAL (DEFICIT),
December 31, 1995 $ (35,700) $ 3,855,300 $ 3,819,600
=========== =========== ===========
</TABLE>
See accompanying summary of accounting
policies and notes to financial statements.
F-5
<PAGE> 47
ENSTAR INCOME PROGRAM II-1, L.P.
STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Year Ended December 31,
-------------------------------------------------
1993 1994 1995
----------- ----------- -----------
<S> <C> <C> <C>
Cash flows from operating activities:
Net income $ 864,000 $ 847,800 $ 618,600
Adjustments to reconcile net income to
net cash provided by operating activities:
Depreciation and amortization 367,200 368,000 694,200
Increase (decrease) from changes in:
Accounts receivable, prepaid expenses and other assets 5,100 9,000 (37,600)
Accounts payable and due to affiliates (53,000) (3,000) (102,200)
----------- ----------- -----------
Net cash provided by operating activities 1,183,300 1,221,800 1,173,000
----------- ----------- -----------
Cash flows from investing activities:
Capital expenditures (154,000) (503,000) (408,200)
Increase in intangible assets (16,500) (12,700) (57,000)
----------- ----------- -----------
Net cash used in investing activities (170,500) (515,700) (465,200)
----------- ----------- -----------
Cash flows from financing activities:
Distributions to partners (378,000) (378,000) (378,000)
Repayment of debt (100,000) -- --
----------- ----------- -----------
Net cash used in financing activities (478,000) (378,000) (378,000)
----------- ----------- -----------
Net increase in cash and cash equivalents 534,800 328,100 329,800
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of year 1,464,600 1,999,400 2,327,500
----------- ----------- -----------
Cash and cash equivalents at end of year $ 1,999,400 $ 2,327,500 $ 2,657,300
=========== =========== ===========
</TABLE>
See accompanying summary of accounting
policies and notes to financial statements.
F-6
<PAGE> 48
ENSTAR INCOME PROGRAM II-1, L.P.
SUMMARY OF ACCOUNTING POLICIES
FORM OF PRESENTATION
Enstar Income Program II-1, L.P., a Georgia limited partnership
(the "Partnership") operates cable television systems in rural areas of
Illinois. As a Partnership, Enstar Income Program II-1, L.P. pays no income
taxes. All of the income, gains, losses, deductions and credits of the
Partnership are passed through to its partners. The basis in the Partnership's
assets and liabilities differs for financial and tax reporting purposes. At
December 31, 1995, the book basis of the Partnership's net assets exceeded its
tax basis by $248,800.
The financial statements do not give effect to any assets that
the partners may have outside of their interest in the Partnership, nor to any
obligations, including income taxes, of the partners.
CASH EQUIVALENTS
For purposes of the statements of cash flows, the Partnership
considers all highly liquid debt instruments purchased with an initial maturity
of three months or less to be cash equivalents. The carrying value of cash and
cash equivalents approximates fair value due to the short maturity of these
instruments.
PROPERTY, PLANT, EQUIPMENT AND DEPRECIATION AND AMORTIZATION
Property, plant and equipment are stated at cost. Direct costs
associated with installations in homes not previously served by cable are
capitalized as part of the distribution system, and reconnects are expensed as
incurred. For financial reporting, depreciation and amortization is computed
using the straight-line method over the following estimated useful lives:
<TABLE>
<S> <C>
Cable television systems 5-15 years
Vehicles 3 years
Furniture and equipment 5-7 years
Leasehold improvements Life of lease
</TABLE>
FRANCHISE COST
The excess of cost over the fair values of tangible assets and
customer lists of cable television systems acquired represents the cost of
franchises. In addition, franchise cost includes capitalized costs incurred in
obtaining new franchises. These costs (primarily legal fees) are direct and
incremental to the acquisition of the franchise and are amortized using the
straight-line method over the lives of the franchises, ranging up to 15 years.
The Partnership periodically evaluates the amortization periods of these
intangible assets to determine whether events or circumstances warrant revised
estimates of useful lives. Costs relating to unsuccessful franchise applications
are charged to expense when it is determined that the efforts to obtain the
franchise will not be successful.
ORGANIZATION COSTS AND DEFERRED CHARGES
Organization costs and deferred charges include costs which are
amortized using the straight-line method over two to five years.
F-7
<PAGE> 49
ENSTAR INCOME PROGRAM II-1, L.P.
SUMMARY OF ACCOUNTING POLICIES
(CONCLUDED)
RECOVERABILITY OF ASSETS
The Partnership assesses on an on-going basis the
recoverability of intangible assets and capitalized plant assets based on
estimates of future undiscounted cash flows compared to net book value. If the
future undiscounted cash flow estimate were less than net book value, net book
value would then be reduced to the undiscounted cash flow estimate. The
Partnership also evaluates the amortization periods of assets to determine
whether events or circumstances warrant revised estimates of useful lives.
In March 1995, the FASB issued Statement No. 121, Accounting
for the Impairment of Long-Lived Assets and for Long-Lived Assets to be Disposed
Of, which requires impairment losses to be recorded on long-lived assets used in
operations when indicators of impairment are present and the undiscounted cash
flows estimated to be generated by those assets are less than the assets'
carrying amount. In such cases, impairment losses are to be recorded based on
estimated fair value, which would generally approximate discounted cash flows.
Statement 121 also addresses the accounting for long-lived assets that are
expected to be disposed of. The Partnership will adopt Statement 121 in the
first quarter of 1996 and, based on current circumstances, does not believe the
effect of adoption will be material.
REVENUE RECOGNITION
Revenues from cable services are recognized as the services are
provided.
RECLASSIFICATIONS
Certain 1994 amounts have been reclassified to conform to the
1995 presentation.
EARNINGS PER UNIT OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP INTEREST
Earnings and losses are allocated 99% to the limited partners
and 1% to the general partners. Earnings and losses per unit of limited
partnership interest is based on the weighted average number of units
outstanding during the year.
USE OF ESTIMATES
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with
generally accepted accounting principles requires management to make estimates
and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in the financial statements and
accompanying notes. Actual results could differ from those estimates.
F-8
<PAGE> 50
ENSTAR INCOME PROGRAM II-1, L.P.
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
NOTE 1 - PARTNERSHIP MATTERS
The Partnership was formed in 1984 to acquire, construct,
improve, develop and operate cable television systems. The partnership agreement
provides for Enstar Communications Corporation (the "Corporate General Partner")
and Robert T. Graff, Jr. to be the general partners and for the admission of
limited partners through the sale of interests in the Partnership. The
Partnership raised capital of $7,500,000 (the maximum) during 1985.
On September 30, 1988, Falcon Cablevision, a California limited
partnership, purchased all of the outstanding capital stock of the Corporate
General Partner.
The partnership agreement generally provides that all cash
distributions (as defined) be allocated 1% to the general partners and 99% to
the limited partners until the limited partners have received aggregate cash
distributions equal to their original capital contributions ("Capital Payback").
The partnership agreement also provides that all partnership profits, gains,
operational losses, and credits (all as defined) be allocated 1% to the general
partners and 99% to the limited partners until the limited partners have been
allocated net profits equal to the amount of cash flow required for Capital
Payback. After the limited partners have received cash flow equal to Capital
Payback, the general partners will receive a 1% allocation of cash flow from
sale or liquidation of a system until the limited partners have received an
annual simple interest return of at least 18 % of their initial investments less
any distributions from previous system sales and cash distributions from
operations after Capital Payback. Thereafter, allocations will be made 15% to
the general partners and 85% to the limited partners. Any losses from system
sales or exchanges shall be allocated first to all partners having positive
capital account balances until all such accounts are reduced to zero and
thereafter to the Corporate General Partner. All allocations to individual
limited partners will be based on their respective limited partnership ownership
interests.
Upon the disposition of substantially all of the partnership's
assets, gains shall be allocated first to the limited partners having negative
capital account balances until their capital accounts are increased to zero,
next equally among the general partners until their capital accounts are
increased to zero, and thereafter as outlined in the preceding paragraph. Upon
dissolution of the Partnership, any negative capital account balances remaining
after all allocations and distributions are made must be funded by the
respective partners.
F-9
<PAGE> 51
ENSTAR INCOME PROGRAM II-1, L.P.
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(CONTINUED)
NOTE 2 - PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT
Property, plant and equipment consist of:
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
December 31,
----------------------------------
1994 1995
----------- -----------
<S> <C> <C>
Cable television systems $ 4,664,100 $ 5,014,300
Vehicles, furniture and equipment,
and leasehold improvements 185,000 200,900
----------- -----------
4,849,100 5,215,200
Less accumulated depreciation
and amortization (3,255,000) (3,893,000)
----------- -----------
$ 1,594,100 $ 1,322,200
=========== ===========
</TABLE>
NOTE 3- COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
Pole rentals amounted to $14,000, $15,000 and $22,800 in 1993,
1994 and 1995, respectively. Rentals, other than pole rentals, charged to
operations amounted to $2,600, $2,500 and $7,800 in 1993, 1994 and 1995,
respectively. The Partnership is not individually committed under any lease
agreement for building space. The Manager has signed lease agreements for
regional office space for which the Partnership is charged its allocable
portion.
Other commitments include approximately $2,463,000 at December
31, 1995 to rebuild the Partnership's cable system.
The Partnership is subject to regulation by various federal,
state and local government entities. The Cable Television Consumer Protection
and Competition Act of 1992 (the "1992 Cable Act") provides for, among other
things, federal and local regulation of rates charged for basic cable service,
cable programming services and equipment and installation services. Regulations
issued in 1993 and significantly amended in 1994 by the Federal Communications
Commission (the "FCC") have resulted in changes in the rates charged for the
Partnership's cable services. The Partnership believes that compliance with the
1992 Cable Act has had a significant negative impact on its operations and cash
flow. It also believes that any potential future liabilities for refund claims
or other related actions would not be material. The Telecommunications Act of
1996 (the "1996 Telecom Act") was signed into law on February 8, 1996. This
statute contains a significant overhaul of the federal regulatory structure. As
it pertains to cable television, the 1996 Telecom Act, among other things, (i)
ends the regulation of certain nonbasic programming services in 1999; (ii)
expands the definition of effective competition, the existence of which
displaces rate regulation; (iii) eliminates the restriction against the
ownership and operation of cable systems by telephone companies within their
local exchange service areas; and (iv) liberalizes certain of the FCC's
cross-ownership restrictions. The FCC will have to conduct a number of
rulemaking proceedings in order to implement many of the provisions of the 1996
Telecom Act.
F-10
<PAGE> 52
ENSTAR INCOME PROGRAM II-1, L.P.
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(CONTINUED)
NOTE 3- COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (Continued)
The attorneys general of approximately 25 states have
announced the initiation of investigations designed to determine whether cable
television systems in their states have acted in compliance with the FCC's rate
regulations.
A recent federal court decision could if upheld and if adopted
by other federal courts, make the renewal of franchises more problematic in
certain circumstances. The United States District Court for the Western District
of Kentucky held that the statute does not authorize it to review a franchising
authority's assessment of its community needs to determine if they are
reasonable or supported by any evidence. This result would seemingly permit a
franchising authority which desired to oust an existing operator to set
cable-related needs at such a high level that the incumbent operator would have
difficulty in making a renewal proposal which met those needs. This decision has
been appealed. The Partnership was not a party to this litigation.
NOTE 4- EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLANS
The Partnership has a cash or deferred profit sharing plan
(the "Profit Sharing Plan") covering substantially all of its employees. The
Profit Sharing Plan provides that each participant may elect to make a
contribution in an amount up to 15% of the participant's annual compensation
which otherwise would have been payable to the participant as salary. The
Partnership's contribution to the Profit Sharing Plan, as determined by
management, is discretionary but may not exceed 15% of the annual aggregate
compensation (as defined) paid to all participating employees. There were no
contributions charged against operations for the Profit Sharing Plan in 1993,
1994 or 1995.
NOTE 5- TRANSACTIONS WITH THE GENERAL PARTNERS AND AFFILIATES
The Partnership has a management and service agreement with a
wholly owned subsidiary of the Corporate General Partner (the "Manager") for a
monthly management fee of 5% of gross receipts, as defined, from the operations
of the Partnership. Management fee expense was $130,100, $128,700 and $130,200
during 1993, 1994 and 1995, respectively.
In addition to the monthly management fee, the Partnership
reimburses the Manager for direct expenses incurred on behalf of the Partnership
and for the Partnership's allocable share of operational costs associated with
services provided by the Manager. All cable television properties managed by the
Corporate General Partner and its subsidiaries are charged a proportionate share
of these expenses. Corporate office allocations and district office expenses are
charged to the properties served based primarily on the respective percentage of
basic customers or homes passed (dwelling units within a system) within the
designated service areas. The total amount charged to the Partnership for these
services was $255,100, $287,400 and $235,100 during 1993, 1994 and 1995,
respectively.
F-11
<PAGE> 53
ENSTAR INCOME PROGRAM II-1, L.P.
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(CONCLUDED)
NOTE 5- TRANSACTIONS WITH THE GENERAL PARTNERS AND AFFILIATES (Continued)
Certain programming services have been purchased through Falcon
Cablevision. In turn, Falcon Cablevision charges the Partnership for these costs
based on an estimate of what the Partnership could negotiate for such
programming services on a stand-alone basis. The Partnership recorded
programming fees expense of $460,900, $476,500 and $504,000 in 1993, 1994 and
1995, respectively. Programming fees are included in service costs in the
statements of income.
NOTE 6 - SUPPLEMENTAL DISCLOSURE OF CASH FLOW INFORMATION
During the years ended December 31, 1993, 1994 and 1995, the
Partnership paid cash interest amounting to $17,800, $6,100 and $9,000
respectively.
F-12
<PAGE> 54
EXHIBIT INDEX
Exhibit
Number Description
- ------ -----------
3 Second Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership of
Enstar Income Program II-1, L.P., dated as of August 1, 1988.(3)
10.1 Management Agreement between Enstar Income Program II-1 and Enstar
Cable Corporation.(1)
10.2 Revolving Credit and Term Loan Agreement dated February 28, 1986
between Enstar Income Program II-1 and Rhode Island Hospital Trust
National Bank.(2)
10.3 Franchise ordinance and related documents thereto granting a
non-exclusive community antenna television franchise for the City of
Taylorville, IL.(2)
10.4 Franchise ordinance and related documents thereto granting a
non-exclusive community antenna television franchise for the City of
Litchfield, IL.(2)
10.5 Franchise ordinance and related documents thereto granting a
non-exclusive community antenna television franchise for the City of
Gillespie, IL.(2)
10.6 Franchise ordinance and related documents thereto granting a
non-exclusive community antenna television franchise for the County
of Christian, IL.(2)
10.7 Service agreement between Enstar Communications Corporation, Enstar
Cable Corporation and Falcon Holding Group, Inc. dated as of October
1, 1988.(4)
10.8 Amendment No. 3 to Revolving Credit and Term Loan Agreement dated
February 28, 1986 between Enstar Income Program 1984-1 and Rhode
Island Hospital Trust National Bank, dated October 15, 1990.(5)
10.9 A resolution of the City Council of Taylorville, Illinois extending
the Cable Television Franchise of Enstar Income Program II-1. Passed
and adopted January 4, 1993.(6)
10.10 Ordinance No. 92-9 of the City Council of Gillespie, Illinois
authorizing an extension of the Cable Television Franchise between
the City of Gillespie and Enstar Cable Corporation. Passed and
approved November 9, 1992.(6)
10.11 Ordinance No. 2497 of the City of Taylorville, Illinois extending
the Cable Television Franchise of Enstar Income Program II-1. Passed
and adopted June 14, 1993.(7)
10.12 A resolution of the County Board of Christian County extending the
Cable Television Franchise of Enstar Income Program II-1. Passed and
adopted November 15, 1994.
10.13 A resolution of the City Council of Litchfield, Illinois extending
the Cable Television Franchise of Enstar Income Program II-1. Passed
and adopted December 8, 1994.
10.14 Ordinance No. 94-16 of the City of Gillespie, Illinois granting a
non-exclusive community antenna television system franchise to
Enstar Income Program II-1. Passed and adopted December 12, 1994.
10.15 Franchise agreement between Enstar Income Program II-1, L.P. and the
City of Taylorville, IL.(9)
10.16 Agreement with Respect to Franchise Fees and Reimbursable Fees
between Enstar Income Program II-1, L.P. and the City of
Taylorville, IL. (9)
10.17 Franchise ordinance granting a non-exclusive community antenna
television franchise for the City of Taylorville, IL. (9)
16.1 Report of change in accountants.(8)
21.1 Subsidiaries: None
E-1
<PAGE> 55
FOOTNOTE REFERENCES
(1) Incorporated by reference to the exhibits to the Registrant's Annual
Report on Form 10-K, File No. 0-14508 for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 1986.
(2) Incorporated by reference to the exhibits to the Registrant's Annual
Report on Form 10-K, File No. 0-14508 for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 1987.
(3) Incorporated by reference to the exhibits to the Registrant's Annual
Report on Form 10-K, File No. 0-14508 for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 1988.
(4) Incorporated by reference to the exhibits to the Registrant's Annual
Report on Form 10-K, File No. 0-14508 for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 1989.
(5) Incorporated by reference to the exhibits to the Registrant's Annual
Report on Form 10-K, File No. 0-14508 for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 1990.
(6) Incorporated by reference to the exhibits to the Registrant's Annual
Report on Form 10-K, File No. 0-14508 for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 1991.
(7) Incorporated by reference to the exhibits to the Registrant's
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, File No. 0-14508 for the quarter
ended September 30, 1993.
(8) Incorporated by reference to the exhibit to the Registrant's Current
Report on Form 8-K, File No. 0-14508 dated October 17, 1994.
(9) Incorporated by reference to the exhibits to the Registrant's
Quarterly report on Form 10-Q, File No. 0-14508 for the quarter
ended September 30, 1995.
E-2
<TABLE> <S> <C>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AT DECEMBER 31, 1995, AND THE STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE NINE MONTHS
ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1995, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<S> <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE> 12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END> DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END> DEC-31-1995
<CASH> 2,657,300
<SECURITIES> 0
<RECEIVABLES> 53600
<ALLOWANCES> 5500
<INVENTORY> 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS> 0
<PP&E> 5,215,200
<DEPRECIATION> 3,893,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS> 4,116,200
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES> 298,600
<BONDS> 0
0
0
<COMMON> 0
<OTHER-SE> 0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY> 4,118,200
<SALES> 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES> 2,603,700
<CGS> 0
<TOTAL-COSTS> 2,085,100
<OTHER-EXPENSES> (109,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION> 27,800
<INTEREST-EXPENSE> 9,000
<INCOME-PRETAX> 618600
<INCOME-TAX> 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING> 618,600
<DISCONTINUED> 0
<EXTRAORDINARY> 0
<CHANGES> 0
<NET-INCOME> 618,600
<EPS-PRIMARY> 20.46
<EPS-DILUTED> 0
</TABLE>
