Loading...
2006, 06-13 Regular Meeting MinutesMayor Wilhite called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., and welcomed everyone to the 93 meeting. Attendance: Diana Wilhite, Mayor Steve Taylor, Deputy Mayor Dick Denenny, Councilmember Mike DeVleming, Councilmember Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Rich Munson, Councilmember Gary Schimmels, Councilmember MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meeting Tuesday June 13, 2006 City Staff: Dave Mercier, City Manager Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney Ken Thompson, Finance Director Tom Scholtens, Building Official Morgan Koudelka, Administrative Analyst Inga Note, Traffic Engineer Marina Sukup, Community Development Director Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Cal Walker, Police Chief Jennifer Cusick, Recreation Coordinator Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk INVOCATION: Pastor Ben Orchard of Valley Bible Church gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Wilhite led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called roll; all Councilmembers were present. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Taylor, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the amended agenda as presented. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: None COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: Councilmember Schimmels: reported that he attended a Solid Waste meeting a few weeks ago; he attended the Spokane Regional Transportation meeting last week, and mentioned an upcoming concurrency workshop; and he also attended the joint meeting with the Council and Board of County Commissioners last week. Councilmember Denenny: explained that he attended the Council /County joint meeting last week; he also attended a TMDL (Total Maximum Daly Load /sewer issue) meeting of the dischargers; that they received a complete re -draft of the proposal from Department Of Ecology for issuance of TMDL and permits, and that it appears all major points have been addressed, and the next step is to forward that to the municipalities for their approval. Deputy Mayor Taylor: mentioned that he attended last week's grand opening of ITRONIC's facility. Councilmember Gothmann: reported that he attended a SNAP (Spokane Neighborhood Action Program) meeting where they discussed becoming a lender of funds for low income housing; he attended a Spokane Valley SCOPE meeting, a governmental affairs meeting with AVISTA, a Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee meeting where they discussed distributing home funds for low income Council Meeting: 06 -13 -06 Page 1 of 7 Approved by Council: 06 -27 -06 housing; he attended a Senior assessment meeting at the Health Department, and the Opportunity School congressional hearing. Councilmember Munson : stated he also attended the Opportunity School congressional hearing; the light rail committee meeting where they were given preliminary estimates of how to fund the project; the AWC (Association of Washington Cities) Legislative agenda; and that he helped judge a karaoke contest at the Eagles Lodge in the Valley. Councilmember DeVleming: explained that he attended his first SCAPA meeting; he also attended a leadership summit meeting several weeks ago hosted by Commissioner Richard; and he attended last week's Joint Council /County meeting regarding Appleway. MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor Wilhite reported that she attended the open house for ITRONICS, she participated in the Relay for Life sponsored by the American Cancer Society; she also attended a Freight Mobility Conference, and she chaired the NE Association of Mayors' meeting, in addition to attending the joint meeting with the County last week to discuss the Milwaukee right -of -way. Mayor Wilhite asked for a motion to excuse Councilmembers Schimmels from this Saturday's retreat. It was moved by Councilmember DeVleming, seconded and unanimously passed to excuse Councilmember Schimmels from this Saturday's retreat. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Wilhite invited general public comments. Ed Weilep, 7216 E 10 Avenue; expressed concern with cars parking in bicycle lanes around Thurman, and that apparently no one seems to want to do anything about it; that he wrote to staff and still has heard nothing concerning the area as one comes westbound on 8th Avenue; that he suggests parking be banned in that area and the stop sign moved to make it more visible. Mayor Wilhite assured Mr. Weilep that staff is checking on the issue and will be responding to his concerns. Tony Lazanis: said that he understands there was discussion of the County turning property over to the City and that he hopes the City won't accept property if there are any strings attached because if that were to happen, he doesn't think light rail will ever happen. Robert Roberts, 17810 E 2" d explained that there is an ongoing problem this year with people committing traffic violations; said that they have called the police and even chased down one car but nothing has been done; he said that they are not juveniles but are adults; and one vehicle in particular came around the corner so fast it was coming only on two wheels; and that he wants more police control in that area of 2 and Long. William Vowels, S 117 Manifold Road: said there is a problem at the corner of Manifold and Second Avenue; that cars are coming down 2 Avenue in excessive speeds, and he suggests the police patrol the area, or have staff look at changing the grading of the street to discourage such speeding. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Cable Franchise — Morgan Koudelka Mayor Wilhite opened the public hearing at 6:27 p.m. Administrative Analyst Koudelka explained the Comcast renewal process; said that tonight's public hearing is to allow public comment concerning past performance and to determine future cable needs of the community; and that he would give an additional presentation later this evening. Mr. Koudelka also explained that after all public comments, he has several comments to read into the record. Claude Kistler, 3911 S Regal Street, Spokane: GM KSPS TV: explained that he represents the managing institution of the Board for Learning and Education, which is shown on channels 15 -19; he asked Council to consider a request for funding in support of the ongoing capital equipment needs at the cable Council Meeting: 06 -13 -06 Page 2 of 7 Approved by Council: 06 -27 -06 VOUCHER LIST DATE VOUCHER #s TOTAL VOUCHER AMOUNT 05 -22 -2006 9185 -9207 $47,133.77 05 -26 -2006 9208 -9233 $1,574,645.28 06 -02 -2006 9246 -9267 $897,325.81 distribution center; which would be an upfront amount of approximately $35,150 for equipment such as automatic switching system; and he also asked Council to consider adopting an assessment of 50¢ per month per subscriber to go toward educational funding. Richard Young, 14010 E 24 Ave: stated that he is a member of the Regional Cable Board; and he read a statement (statement from Alan Gilson, Chair of that Board) which discussed the mission and the makeup of the Cable Advisory Board, the PEG channels and a variety of issues surrounding those channels; and he urged the City to dedicate funding to the operation of the service. Kevin Daymont, 4918 N Adams, Spokane: stated he is the President of Inland Access TV, a non - profit organization dedicated to public access; and is former chair of the Cable Advisory Board; explained that Council has a unique opportunity to set its identity in terms of cable in how to respond to things like public access; that there is opportunity to set up for government access to have all public meetings televised; and explained that funding is a critical issue; that Cities are entitled to collect fee related to cable, and if this City were to do so, to please make sure those fees stay dedicated to cable oversight and toward public and government access. Barnetta Bindewald, 3811 E Bridgeport in Spokane City: said she is a board member of Inland Access TV; that their channel is 14; that in Spokane there is only one public access channel and it is shared with NASA; that they have always been on the bottom end of the PEG system; that there is a need to have the equipment upgraded; that she sees this as a great opportunity to provide programs on community concerns, and as an example, she explained that she produces a program on tribal concerns, and has done historical re- enactments of local history plus old west history; but she stated programs must be well funded. Mildred Holland, 8221 N Weipiet Drive, Spokane County: as a representative of Access TV, she said she feels there will be lots of seniors to share experiences with; and a good way to do that is through Access TV; and that this is done in other parts of the County and is well accepted and very popular. Richard Lee, 2604 E Boone Avenue, Spokane: discussed community access programming such as cooking shows, commentaries, comedy shows; and he suggested Council look to other cities for models on how to accomplish this; and urged council to use cable funds appropriately. Tony Lazanis: stated that channel 5 was reported to be a free channel, but it is not free unless one has cable; and he suggested Council negotiate a channel so citizens can watch the meetings. Mayor Wilhite invited further public comment; no further comments being offered, Administrative Analyst Koudelka read an e -mail statement from Chuck Trier, 13812 E 9 concerning his view on the cable contract; and also read a letter from Comcast in response to a technical review which was recently completed; which was followed by brief comments from Ken Watts, Comcast General Manager. Mayor Wilhite then closed the public hearing at 7:05 p.m. 2. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. A Councilmember may remove an item from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. a. Following claim vouchers: Council Meeting: 06 -13 -06 Approved by Council: 06 -27 -06 Page 3 of 7 06 -07 -2006 GRAND TOTAL 9268 -9285 $20,333.95 $2,539,438.81 b. Payroll for Pay Period Ending May 31, 2006: $210,985.63 c. Minutes of May 23, 2006 Regular Council Meeting d. Minutes of May 30, 2006 Special Executive Session Meeting It was moved by Councilmember Munson, seconded, and unanimously passed to approve the Consent Agenda. NEW BUSINESS 3. Motion Consideration: Converting Broadway to Three Lanes — Neil Kersten It was moved by Deputy Mayor Taylor and seconded, to approve the re- stripping of Broadway from Pines to Sullivan from the current four -lane configuration to a three -lane configuration with bike lanes. Public Works Director Kersten briefly explained the proposal, followed by a PowerPoint presentation by Engineer Inga Note, containing information on the resurfacing project, road capacity, local three -lane examples, vehicle safety /collision history, and intersection collision rates. Ms. Note also stated that staff received letters from Central Valley School District and the Spokane Valley Fire Department in support of the conversion. In response to Council question, Police Chief Walker stated that a vehicle could move forward 300 feet in the turning lane without being ticketed; and that backing out of a driveway or maneuvering one's vehicle generally does not justify a ticket. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment. Dan Allison, N 1203 Warren Road: said that he travels Broadway all the time, and if the road is not broke, don't fix it; that a recent survey said that 95% of the people do not want it changed to three lanes; and that Council has better things to spend their money on. Paul Clemons, 1006 N Warner Road: explained that he lives just north of Broadway off of Adams; that he is opposed to the change and he is leery when someone only explains the pros of a project and not the cons; he wondered why the entire length of Broadway is not being proposed for a change and why those reasons are not presented to the public. Al Schlosser, 608 N Vercler Road; said there is no improvement in going to three lanes with tremendously wide bike lanes; and suggested placing arrow turns at all heavily traveled road sections. Grant Rodkey, 11524 E 19th Avenue: stated he is opposed to this especially after seeing what occurred on 16 that this creates road rage by not being able to get around slow people; he asked where is the money coming from and wondered if the project is being done to use federal funding to promote alternative transportation like bike lanes; that on 16 Street he rarely sees anyone using bike lanes; and he suggested a fee be imposed to those who ride bicycles for their share of the road if bike lanes is the purpose; he also questioned why not just put three lanes in front of the school. Carol Stobie, 15103 East Broadway: said she has lived at this current address for over 30 years and has never seen an accident in that area; and that there have never been any accidents with the school or the school children; and she invited Council to ride with her as she attempts to back into and out of her driveway. Claire Bergland, 1018 N Fox Road: she explained that she lives just two or three blocks north of Broadway and has lived there 38 years; and that one lane less will cause chaos and will be dangerous to put a bike trail there. Council Meeting: 06 -13 -06 Page 4 of 7 Approved by Council: 06 -27 -06 Suzette Whitford, 15115 E Broadway; explained that she lives right across from Broadway, and that this is a stupid idea; that it would be difficult to get out of her driveway; that the area is impossible now and putting in bike lanes will result in accidents with kids in front of the school. Dick Behm, 9405 E Sprague, Dishman: stated that since 1950, he has used Broadway all the time as an alternative to Sprague; and he is confused why we would take lanes off Broadway when trying to put in more lanes in the corridor. Ed Weilep, East 10 avenue: he asked Police Chief Walker why the police department never tickets the cars on the bike lane on 8 Avenue; and Mayor Wilhite assured him that the Chief would be in contact soon. Council /staff discussion ensued regarding the project, including that the reason for this proposal was as a result of the re- construction of Broadway to re -grind the surface, and that this presented an opportunity to stripe in a different manner if Council chose; that the reason for going only on the section identified is because Pines would be a natural termination point and not a major intersection; that staff could place signs at the intersection informing the public of the project; that perhaps this is more of a speed enforcement problem; that there are other intersection problems such as University and Bowdish; that there appears to be an overwhelming response that people do not want this; that it appears from other studies that such a configuration improves safety; that this is more a matter of all who travel the roadway and not just those who live along the road; and that Broadway is a residential neighborhood and this will make it safer for bike lanes. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Councilmembers Schimmels, Denenny, Gothmann, and DeVleming. Opposed: Mayor Wilhite, Deputy Mayor Taylor, and Councilmember Munson. Abstentions: None. Motion passed. Mayor Wilhite called for a recess at 8:10 p.m., and reconvened the meeting at 8:15 p.m. 4. Second Reading, Proposed Ordinance 06 -014 Amending 2006 Budget — Ken Thompson After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Taylor and seconded, to approve ordinance 06 -014. Finance Director Thompson explained that there were several changes as outlined in the ordinance and in his PowerPoint slides, necessitating the need for an amended budget. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 5. First Reading, Proposed Ordinance 06 -015 Amending SVMC Title 10, Construction Work and Activity Within Right -of -way - Tom Scholtens /Cary Driskell After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Taylor and seconded, to advance ordinance 06 -015 to a second reading. Building Official Scholtens explained the background of this proposal, as per his June 13, 2006 Request for Council Action form, which also outlined the proposed language changes. Deputy City Attorney Driskell added that he contacted the City's insurance carrier, WCIA, who indicated the need to keep the liability language requirements reflected in the ordinance, and Mr. Driskell indicated that section might be revised prior to a second reading. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 6. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 06 -016 Time Warner Franchise — Cary Driskell After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Councilmember DeVleming and seconded, to suspend the rules and approve Ordinance 06 -016. Deputy City Attorney Driskell explained that this ordinance franchise would allow Time Warner to become the fourth entity to place fiber optics in Council Meeting: 06 -13 -06 Page 5 of 7 Approved by Council: 06 -27 -06 the City's right -of -way; and that there was little change from the previous agreements, other than a change in the dark fiber granted from four fibers to two, which is two strands down to one strand; that he discussed with IT Specialist Bing the City's needs, and that no concerns regarding that use were issued. Mr. Driskell also mentioned that there is no cost until we ask to use it and at this point, Time Warner's reason for the fiber is not known. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Mayor Wilhite, Deputy Mayor Taylor, and Councilmembers Schimmels, Denenny, Gothmann, and DeVleming. Opposed: Councilmember Munson. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 7. Proposed Resolution 06 -013 Adopting 2007 -2012 TIP — Steve Worley It was moved by Deputy Taylor and seconded, to approve resolution 06 -013 adopting the 2007 -2012 six year Transportation Improvement Program. Public Works Director Kersten explained that some changes were made due to various funding issues, and briefly explained those changes as mentioned in his June 13, 2006 Request for Council Action form. Councilmember Munson mentioned that he would like accident reports for just the isolated area on Broadway being changed. Mr. Kersten also mentioned some projects involve extensive coordination among participating entities in addition to the City, such as the County, SRTC (Spokane Regional Transportation Council), and WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation). Mayor Wilhite invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 8. Motion Consideration: Mayoral Appointments Student Advisory Council — Councilmember DeVleming It was moved by Councilmember DeVleming, and seconded to approve the Mayor 's appointments of the following individuals to the Student Advisory Council: Alex Peterson, West Valley; Justin Foltz, West Valley; Sarah Manus, Valley Christian; Stephanie Smith, University; Sharmaingne McMahon, University; Brandi Duvul, East Valley; Nick, Piger, Central Valley; and Jie Jiao, Central Valley. Mayor Wilhite mentioned that Hailey Parrish will be an alternate. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment; no comments were offered. Councilmember Schimmels announced that he has a niece on this list. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 9. Motion Consideration: Spokane County Sewer Memorandum Of Understanding Amendment — Neil Kersten It was moved by Deputy Mayor Taylor and seconded to approve the Amended Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Spokane Valley and Spokane County for pavement replacement and drainage improvements in the 2006 sewer construction program in the additional amount of $150,000, and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute the agreement. Public Works Director Kersten explained that the reason for the amended agreement is that the bids came in higher than anticipated, and additional funds are needed to do the paveback. Councilmember Schimmels stated that he has relatives involved with this project, and he excused himself from this item and left the room. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Taylor, seconded, and unanimously passed to extend the meeting to 9:15 P.m. PUBLIC COMMENTS. Mayor Wilhite invited public comments; no comments were offered. Councilmember Schimmels returned to the dais. Council Meeting: 06 -13 -06 Page 6 of 7 Approved by Council: 06 -27 -06 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 10. Cable Franchise Update — Morgan Koudelka Administrative Analyst Koudelka gave his PowerPoint presentation discussing the background of the cable franchise, the financial impacts including budgeted amounts, forecasted revenues, what the City can regulate concerning the franchise, the franchise negotiations, PEG channels, and briefly the results of the public access survey and a brief recap of the technical review. Council /staff discussion continued concerning accessing a PEG channel and that Spokane has reserved a multi jurisdictional PEG channel so space is available on that channel; the decision for who does programming; that there is no designation that earmarks specific fees for PEG purposes; that such a franchise does not preclude others from obtaining a franchise; and that Councilmember Gothmann would like to see a matrix of capital expenditures generated by each of the PEG parts, including operating expenses, where the revenues comes from, the ability to collect funding and what the city can regulate, and all choices in the three categories (PEG categories of public access, education, and government channels). It was moved by Councilmember De Vleming, seconded, and unanimously agreed to extend the meeting another 10 minutes. At Council request, brief comments were given from Comcast General Manager Ken Watts concerning audio deviations and installed equipment to attempt to level audio from channel to channel. There being no further business, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Taylor, seconded, and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 9:18 p.m. C nstl C ristine Bainbridge, City Clerk Diana Wilhite, Mayor Council Meeting: 06 -13 -06 Page 7 of 7 Approved by Council: 06 -27 -06 1$ 1101 11 l , 'tilW4 '1 IIk II lb nag lititjii lc `III.. EZEIMINli ' NAME PLEASE PRINT TOPIC OF CONCERN YOU WILL MarWaX I ADDRESS TELEPHONE DAM A1.I150/0 & 0 0 1091 / 6h/bV,E N i2o lrr t4/6c/ 2 0072, o 1. tide 1 CCU( CCet 1.5 ?Toc<c)c.,. e - s4ri#9 /OO6 N (c.t,�4,\ SA94A&P it...Q w, . 424 - 6455 9A . S'3 /49 4 // 6 6 gels S7 - p er hliv9c. I/y 5449a/ /d Rd care e 0t8 «e S (41€‘ j r - L. e ,,,., r2 ,..., ) 3. i c C- /0 VE 9atr- 51 ,g1 r SIGN -IN SHEET t mom SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 13, 2006 CITIZEN COMMENTS YOUR SPEAKING TIME WILL BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES 1 1.r `t1 i Rf '� 'r"•Q4.� ti Tea lam sa ar aililk C (I1t IllOil II? NAME PLEASE PRINT TOPIC OF CONCERN YOU ADDRESS TELEPHONE WILL ''.I,JG`ll &rap( VA i ? Ke21 CDITID CNILL SIGN -IN SHEET SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 13, 2006 CITIZEN COMMENTS YOUR SPEAKING TIME WILL BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES U la MIELtr, CORKIN SIGN -IN SHEET SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 13, 2006 CITIZEN COMMENTS YOUR SPEAKING TIME WILL BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES ;y1 i n ,me TOI'IC OF WLLL c(14,.JWll Oa 11111 I7! I9M CONCERN YOU i,'L MOE 'U ii1011i,1 raw UU4fi/ ut 1ry NAME PLEASE PRINT ADDRESS TELEPHONE :G . . / Id Idle I r'oa A A-51)1 r h, /t5 ;; X44 ? Z 1/4 ( -- Oak_ U la MIELtr, CORKIN SIGN -IN SHEET SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 13, 2006 CITIZEN COMMENTS YOUR SPEAKING TIME WILL BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES Spokane j" SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL :MEETING Tuesday, June 13, 2006 PUBLI C :HEALING SIGN -IN SHEET SUBJECT: Cable Franchise IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK at the Publialearing,_p_lease sign below. PRINT NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. There may be a time limit for your comments. Any documents for Council consideration should be provided to the City Clerk for distribution. NAME PLEASE PRINT ADDRESS TELEPHONE NAME PLEASE PRINT ADDRESS TELEPHONE "'/a -- A...3 i` 3 , // s. /4„,..7 s. 3 sy -7 3Y � . 000.0 1 C ;P�- 0/7 / (Ya 10 6 L(r titI6 7 /'° / tom 4 A-.,+" s q g-0'gr s' 3 2 f- 2 / 73 A /4-i. ,, ,!//4` ri n o- a 1 A • . w a. 3 8 E , LCY 41 f 1 / g / '/` O i`lii A / / i(. .2( A “Ai f.s.( Of_ 6 15 - 1 - VQ6z - .41.■ L -•0° r 1 '1. /60 t 1 1 f -z( _ . . V., _ A I , f S /\.., P o`ka n jValley SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING Tuesday, June 13, 2006 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET SUBJECT: Cable Franchise I YOI,L'4�'O LIKE TO SPEAK at the Public Hearing, please sign below. PRINT NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. There may be a time limit for your conments Any documents for Council consideration should be provided to the City Clerk for distribution. Tune 13, 2006 Mayor Diana Wilhite Members of the City Council City of Spokane Valley 11707 B. Sprague, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Dear Mayor Wilhite and Council Members: As Chair of the Spokane Regional Cable Advisory Board, 1 would like to submit these comments to the record as part of the City's Comcast Franchise hearing. These comments briefly go over the mission of the Spokane Regional Cable Advisory Board and to address the cable re- franchising for the City of Spokane Valley. The Spokane Regional Cable Advisory Board is comprised of 11 members, three of which are from the.City of Spokane Valley and appointed by this Council. Dick Young, Brad Griffith, and I, represent the interests of the City while other members are appointed by the City of Spokane, and Spokane County. The Spokane Regional Cable Advisory Board is a citizens' body, formed in spirit of inter - local cooperation between the City of' Spokane, Spokane County, and the City of Spokane Valley, for the purpose of insuring representation of citizens and participating local governments in matters regarding cable franchises and cable communications issues. The Spokane Regional Cable Advisory Board is just that...a group of citizens that have experience in the cable television industry or are versed in many of the issues that face cable operators and communities. Originally chartered in the 1991 City of Spokane Franchise and 1992 Spokane County Franchise, the existence of the Board was recently reaffirmed as a part of the City of Spokane's new franchise with Comcast. The Board is a resource that you, the Council, can turn to for advice or use to review complex issues surrounding cable television service then provide recommendations hack to you. Cable Hearing Comments June 13, 2006 Page Two Like any City Board or Commission, we arc ready to serve however we do look to the Council and city staff to provide some direction or tasks for the Board. We welcome the challenges of assisting the City in the current re- franchising effort or undertake other work as needed. The City of Spokane Valley is currently involved in developing a new franchise agreement with Comcast Cable. The City is in a unique position, as the City of Spokane has already completed its agreement and provided a reasonable framework for your agreement in Spokane Valley. Items such as the length of the franchise, technical standards, and customer service standards are on the table. Unfortunately, federal law does not allow the City of Spokane Valley to regulate cable television service rates, other than the very basic service level...and then, only within some very strict parameters. Cable operators are also free to package their product in a manner that they feel is advantageous to their business model. This is another area where you have little, i.f any, legal jurisdiction. There are, however, some opportunities for the City that lie ahead in this process. Cable TV technology, and the current franchise with the City of Spokane offers a number of Public, Education, and Government channels in the cable spectrum for use, by and for, the citizens. These channels are available for the community for public interest programming, learning opportunities, and as a portal for citizen participation in their local government. In the Spokane Comcast System, PEG channels include Channels 5, 12, 14, 15 through 19, and 95. There are a variety of issues that surround the PEG channels, programming, citizen participation, and of course, funding for operations. The City of Spokane has worked out agreements to cover capital costs of these services, but operating dollars are still in limbo. The City of Spokane Valley needs to join in the effort to dedicate funding to the operations of this service. Also in flux is the question of who will operate public access channels in the future. Federal regulations no longer require the franchisee to assume those responsibilities. Ongoing ollars to cover the operating costs for this service is critical. Cable Hearing Comments June 13, 2006 Page Two The most important issue that lies ahead for the City of Spokane Valley is the opportunity to raise the access of local government to its citizens to a higher level, through the live cable- casting of City Council meetings and other government gatherings on a City of Spokane Valley channel. Cable- casting of City of Spokane City Council meeting have been available for citizens, via the cable system, for decades. Yes, sometimes it can be controversial, perhaps uncomfortable, certainly unrehearsed, but important nevertheless. If you, as leaders, want to reach your citizenry and garner their participation in this representative system of government, you must also reach out to them with something more than sanitized meeting minutes on a website or newspaper and TV stories slanted to some media editors' vision. The opportunity for this service is now, and may not appear again, and we implore the City of Spokane Valley to move in this direction. The re- franchising for Comcast is on a fast track and the City of Spokane Valley has many important decisions to make, and some delicate negotiations lie ahead. The members, of the Spokane Regional Cable Advisory Board stand ready to assist you in any way possible. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Alan Gilson, Chair For the Spokane Regional Cable Advisory Board 3521 S. Woodward Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Joel Whitman From: Morgan Koudelka Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 8:48 AM To: Joel Whitman Subject: FW: comcast and dw tv Original Message From: chuck trier [mailto:trier c@hotmail.com) Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2005 2:39 PM To: Morgan Koudelka Subject: comcast and dw tv 1) Keep the contract as short as possible so that there can be more competition. 2) Find out what comcast can do for disabled and seniors on fixed income - Basic/Basic cable rates are increasing faster than inflation. 3) See if Comcast can carry dw -tv on a separate channel in the basic /basic section. Reason: DW-TV broadcasts in Lerman, Spanish, and English. One gets a different take on the world and can use this also for :Language skills development. Currently D'n' -TV is only on CCS channel when CCS is not broadcasting its curriculum. Actually, would like to see many more learning/ informational/ book review programs on basic /basic cable. 4) Have comcast make the small print larger for those of us having difficulty reading the fine print. 5) Call basic /basic something else so that we don't get confused with Basic 6) Since we all contributed to the buiding of the two htunoungous stadiums in Seattle, and many of us can't afford to travel there, how can those teams get on basic /basic cable so that we can all enjoy the playoffs, etc. on this side of the state. The carrying of games on basic /basic seems to have decreased in recent years. This gets back to what is Comcast doing for seniors of limited means and ability to get out that aren't able to afford the more expensive cable packages. 7) Why are some channels so snowy? Either carry there or not. Bravo, etc. Channel 2 often has a bar or the people are doubled in golf tournaments, etc 8) Will someone on the committee please look into Intel's Digital Communities initiative? Someday we should have WI -Max towers in the valley so that everyone can get broadband and digital TV for. one .Low -cost rate. Keep that contract flexible and represent our entire community fairly. 9) In this regard study how Tacoma has dealt with Comcast in being able to get a basic rate for broadband and basic cable service. Keep on your digital toes, city council! Chuck Trier 13812 E 9th City of Spokane Valley - it's perfect! 1 Joel Whitman From: Joel Whitman Sent: Friday, June 09; 2006 10:19 AM To: Morgan Koudelka Subject: FW: Spokane Valley Public Hearing Joel Whitman, Administrative Intern City of Spokane Valley 509.688.0181 6/13/2006 From: chuck trier [mailto:trier c @hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 10:11 AM To: Joel Whitman Subject: RE: Spokane Valley Public Hearing Page 1 of 2 Thanks for the email, Joel. I bring to your attention an article in USA Today that relates to the house passing the cable bill to encourage competition (321 -101). Here is the link: htt.p_ / /www_usatoday.comltech /news /2006- O6 -09- telecom -bill x.htm ?POF= TECISVA 1 hope that the council, when it looks at the cable franchaise, also considers FIOS by Verizon, ccm.munity -owned WIMAX, and other options that encourage competition such as keeping the terms flexible due to the rapidly changing nature of the technology. Please keep in mind the senior citizens and those who are disabled who live on relatively fixed incomes and watch in dazed amazement as their house values increase, health costs increase, and COLA increases not keeping up with real inflation. One congresswoman showed a chart where the cable fees were increasing substantially faster than inflation. We know that all too well in this area. The most basic cable fee has almost doubled in just a few years. Why can't the basic basic cable service be free to all of us? Why can't Wi -Fi be a community effort and free for all of us (supported by advertising, if need be)? So many cities both larger and smaller seem to find this quite appropriate. Spokane - Chuck in Spokane Valley Valley can become so much more with a little foresight and negotiating effort. From: Joel Whitman' <jwhitmangDspokane►a/ley.org> To: <trier c@hotniaf/.cnm> Subject: Spokane Valley Public Hearing Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 09:15:36 -0700 Dear Mr. Trier, Page 2 of 2 You recently contacted the City of Spokane Valley via e-mail regarding the cable franchise renewal process. Due to your interest in this matter we would like to inform you about the upcoming public hearing Tuesday night June 13 Citizens are welcome to speak to city council and voice their concems (3 minute time limit) or you may submit comments in writing. The public hearing will be held at 11707 East Sprague Ave in the council chambers (first floor south entrance). We look forward to seeing you there. Attached is a copy of the public hearing notice. Joel Whitman, Administrative Intern City of Spokane Valley 509.688.0181 >« letterhead_June_Public Hearing.doc » 6/13/2006 USATODAY.com - Telecom bill would open cable TV markets, lower bills, supporters say Page 1 of 2 p Know what lenders, landlords and employers know. EQUIFAX € Pf Telecom bill would open cable TV markets, lower bills, supporters say Advertisement Updatcd 6/9/2006 10:02 AM ET WASHINGTON (AP) — Monopolies in many cable TV markets could end under House - passed legislation that supporters say would increase competition and drive down prices. Powered by f 1 The far - reaching telecommunications legislation, passed 321 -101 Thursday night, would encourage telephone companies and others to enter video markets by scrapping the time - consuming system where prospective providers must negotiate individually with every locality. "This legislation can increase competition not only for cable services, but also unleash a race for who can supply the fastest, most sophisticated broadband connections that will provide video, voice and data services," said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton, R- Texas. Barton noted that because of the impediments created by the local franchising system, the United States doesn't even rank in the top 10 worldwide in broadband deployment. "This bill should change that statistic," he said. The issue moves to the Senate, where the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee is to vote on its version of the bill later this month. Verizon urged the "Senate to act soon because every year reform is delayed costs Americans more than $8 billion in their cable bills," said Peter Davidson, Verizon senior vice president for federal govemment relations. While there was wide agreement on the principle of increasing competition, the House was divided over the issue of "net neutrality," or how to ensure that telephone, cable and other Internet providers don't discriminate against competitors or users by limiting access or charging higher fees. The Barton bill gives the Federal Communications Commission authority to enforce net neutrality principles and set fines of up to $500,000 for violations. Many Democrats, backed by a diverse lobby of content providers such as Google (GOOG) and Microsoft (MSFT), and users ranging from religious broadcasters to liberal bloggers, said this wasn't enough to maintain the Internet's freewheeling openness. Rep. Edward Markey, D- Mass., offered an amendment stating that broadband network providers must not discriminate against or interfere with users' ability to access or offer lawful content. Opponents argued that it would create government regulations controlling the Internet and make it more difficult for service providers to invest in new high -speed technology. It was defeated 269 -152. 'Tilting the cost burden onto end users, which would be the inevitable result of neutrality regulations, will only delay much - needed broadband deployment,' said Mike McCurry, co -chair of Hands off the Internet, a coalition of telephone, business and small government groups. http: / /usatoday.printthi s.cl ickability.com/pt/cpt? action =cpt &title= USATOUAY.com +- +Te... 6/1312006 USATODAY.com - Telecom hill would open cable TV markets, lower bills, supporters say Page 2 of 2 The White House said in a statement that it supports the bill and its language on video franchising. But on net neutrality, the administration said the FCC has the power to address potential abuses. "Creating a new legislative framework for regulation in this area is premature," the statement said. Democratic opponents also said the measure did too little to ensure that broadband services would be extended to lower income and rural areas. Markey predicted that telephone companies would open services in wealthy communities, providing competition for services and lower prices but that it would ignore poorer areas that would be stuck with high prices. Rep. Bobby Rush, 13-111., a black lawmaker from Chicago's South Side and a co- sponsor of the legislation, disputed that. "I'm from the other side of town," he said. "This is a bill that will make a difference in the lives of the people on the other side of town." "This bill is about cable rates and what we know today is that cable rates are too high in America," said Rep. Albert Wynn, D -Md., another member of the Congressional Black Caucus. Rep. Fred Upton, R -Mich, who heads the telecommunications subcommittee, estimated that people could save $30 to $40 each month if given a choice in video services. Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Find this article at: http: //vrnnv. usatoday.coml tech) news /2006 -06 -09 - telecom- bill_x. htm ?POE =TEC ISVA Check the box to inctude the list of finks referenced in the article. http: / /usatoday.printt. his. clickability .com /pt/cpt?action =cpt &title =USA T ODAY.com +- +Te... 6/13/2006 r June 12, 2006 Dear Mr. Koudelka, Mr. Morgan Koudelka City of Spokane Valley 11707 E Sprague, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 P l Comcast of Pennsylvania/Washington /West Virginia, LP (Comcast), would like to take this opportunity to respond in writing to the city of Spokane Valley (City) regarding the Technical Evaluation conducted by Columbia Telecommunications Corporation (CTC). Comcast is very pleased with CTC's procedures in conducting the technical evaluation and appreciate their professionalism in communicating with and allowing us to participate throughout the entire process. Overall, we agree with the results contained within CTC's May 2006 report titled Technical Evaluation of the Comcast Cable System Serving Spokane Valley, Washington. CTC's evaluation confirms our belief that Comcast has rebuilt and is operating a highly reliable and top quality cable system that provides your citizens and our customers the products and services that connect them to what's important in their lives. Although we do not disagree with the overall findings concerning subscriber drops under Section 4.2, we would like to offer clarification. After the field inspection with CTC, Comcast visited the locations identified as "failed" to review the status of the drops (active vs. inactive). We found that the majority of the drops in question were inactive, and the few remaining active drops comply with a prior version of the National Electric Code (NEC). Such drops most likely fall under the NEC's non- conformance provision, allowing them to remain compliant with the prior code until there is a change in service at the location. Comcast's clarification on this issue is not meant to challenge CTC evaluation, but rather to remind the City that there are multiple factors to consider when determining compliance. We would be happy to discuss any of these on an individual basis. We would also like to provide the City' an understanding of our drop evaluation process that takes place at the time of new installations, re- installations, and service upgrades. During the scheduled appointment, the status of the service drop is evaluated under the current version of the NEC. if a drop is found to be out -of compliance the technician is authorized to correct the problem at that time. However, if for any reason the work cannot be performed at that time we schedule the location for the necessary follow -up. Spokane Valley — Technical Evaluation Page I oft Comcast Reply Letter 1 ■ In conclusion, CTC's evaluation has confirmed that Comcast's cable system meets or exceeds the required FCC technical standards. Additionally, Comcast has invested millions of dollars in the Spokane area to provide increased reliability and quality while expanding the services we offer. This focus on improving our value provides more programming choices and opportunities for exciting new products like high- definition television channels and Comcast's video -on- demand service. For the record, Comcast requests that the City provide us a copy of the final report after adoption by the City Council. If you have any questions please contact nie at (509) 484 -4931 x52299. Sincerely, Kenneth G. Watts General Manager cc: Terry Davis, Director of Franchising & Government Affairs, Comcast Janet Turpen, Vice President, Government Affairs, Comcast Ken Rhoades, South -East Area Vice- President, Comcast Spokane Valley — Technical Evaluation Page 2 of 2 Comcast Reply Letter Chris Bainbridge From: Sue Golman Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 2:07 PM To: City Council; Dave Mercier; Neil Kersten; Inga Note; Steve Worley; Carolbelle Branch; Chris Bainbridge Subject: FW: Planned Broadway Re- striping Sue Golman Administrative Assistant City of Spokane Valley 11707 E. Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Phone: 509 - 688 -0180 FAX: 509- 688 -0194 sgolman @spokanevalley.org "The Difference between ordinary & extraordinary, is that little Extra." Original Message From: Paul Clemons (mailto:Paul @xxlware.com) Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 11:58 AM To: Sue Golman Subject: Planned Broadway Re- striping Paul Clemons 1006 North Warren Spokane Valley, WA I live just North of Broadway {Adams intersection} and use Broadway on average at least once a day. As a background, I have previously lived on a busy valley street which is South McDonald road for 28 years. I currently have a child at North Pines and travel Broadway all the time. I realize that I probably will not have time to address all of these issues tonight in 3 minutes so I am hoping some of them will be addressed by a council member. I am adamantly opposed to the re- striping for the following reasons: Problems with the Handout: First off I would like to address the information provided at the last council meeting. The first is the collision history data provided of 118 total collisions. Is that from Pines to Sullivan? If not, why is the re- striping only from Pines to Sullivan? The highest collision rated intersection of Broadway and University isn't even touched by this plan. The alternatives for other Broadway intersections need to be addressed for the only intersection with a problem in the re- striping zone which is McDonald. The West side example is not even close to being the same as Broadway with a lake on one side and large (front facing) driveways. There is not the same amount of cross traffic or intersecting roads from both sides (i.e. Blake, Best etc.). Free Right Turn: Currently if a vehicle is turning right into a driveway etc. you can use the left lane to pass. With the re- striping this passing option disappears (at least legally). At intersections with lights, this will at least double the amount of time to pass through the intersection. Currently at Evergreen and Broadway I make it a point to stay in the left lane allowing others to have a free right turn onto Evergreen. With the re- striping, cars will have to proceed single file regardless if they are turning or not. People turning do not turn at the same speed as people traveling straight through nor do they pull into a left turn lane at the speed of traffic and then slow down. If there is a pedestrian crossing, everyone will have to wait for those turning right. If you are turning right you better pull onto Broadway in front of on coming traffic because chances are the person in front of you is not turning. Occasionally it takes two light cycles to proceed East through Evergreen at peak hours with cars doubled up. With cars forced single file except for left turners, it will take at least twice as long to pass through. 1 Slow Traffic: When 1 make a trip to Home Depot, Lowes, Costco, the dump, or any other place where I have a large or heavy load on my truck, I take Broadway. I do this because there are two lanes and I can travel with my load in the right lane at a slower speed without feeling rushed. Some drivers simply drive slow all the time. With single lane traffic, traffic speeds will be decreased to the slowest driver. This may make safety people happy but the intense frustration of the 15 cars behind a slow driver will be at the worst, road rage volatile. I know if I see a car traveling down Broadway with a bunch of cars trailing behind, I am going to pull in front at risk of injury so I will not be the caboose. Train Crossings: You might be asking yourself what train crossings. Well the answer is the new train crossings at Adams and Progress. I often cross Broadway at Adams as I am sure many others do at other similar intersections. I definitely don't want to see lights installed hindering traffic efficiency further. However, on my way to the last council meeting I counted 12 cars passing Adams from the West alone. Now with the traffic doubled up into two lanes, it went by in a reasonable amount of time. With the re-striping it will be like waiting for trains to go by with single file traffic from both directions. And what do people have a tendency to do when there is a train coming. They gun it through the intersection so they wont have to sit there and wait. Look for more of these T -bode type of accidents with the re- striping. The example road on the West side of the state has a lake on one side of the road and therefore there is very little if any traffic crossing the road and Broadway is completely different. Safety vs. Efficiency: Making everyone push their cars through school zones may dramatically increase the safety of the school kids, but it places a heavy burden on the public. Just as you found out at the last meeting. The increasing the safety of Bigelow Gulch places a burden on the city with Sullivan. When you increase safety, it simply relocates the burden somewhere else. Re- striping Broadway will decrease the efficiency of travel along that corridor. (Yes, this is an indication that I think the proposed 20 MPH all day is not efficient and aggravating) Bike Lanes: With bike lanes on Mission, 16th, 32nd, Sprague on the one way, and the Centennial Trail; I don't think we are hurting for bike lanes. As a biker the problems I have are with getting to and from the trail (North South). Evergreen doesn't connect to the trail, Pines is horrible and too far to go to Trent, and Sullivan is too busy and geared for mall traffic. A bike lane for bikers Is not a good enough reason to re- stripe Broadway. With cars partially in the bike lane (UPS, Garbage, Mail), is it actually legal to pass partially in the left turn lane? Closing Arguments: The permissive light at Evergreen and Broadway was an absolute nightmare when Evergreen first opened up. The split light is awesome for efficiency even if the engineers say it is worse because of the increased wait times. Protected- Permitted, Split or some other solutions should be carefully thought over for McDonald and Broadway before aggravating many with the re- striping plan. I am sure changing Broadway back when all of the headaches are realized will not be free. With living in the valley all these years, I have come across some stupid planning decisions and have often wondered who was the 'idiot' who thought that up. Everyday when I leave my house I will now be able to place a name to what I feel is a horrible decision. Thanks for your time, Paul. 2