Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Franchise Agreement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Spokane Valley staff brief council on Forge Fiber franchise; council gives consensus to move item forward
Summary
City staff described a proposed franchise with Forge Fiber 37 LLC (linked to AT&T/Lumen activities), noting right‑of‑way permit requirements, a $2 million liability insurance requirement, a standing $25,000 performance bond (increaseable for large projects), and references to a 3–5 year pavement warranty; council voiced consensus to bring the franchise forward for formal consideration.
Tony Beatty, speaking for city staff, briefed Spokane Valley City Council on a proposed franchise with Forge Fiber 37 LLC, described in the presentation as a company connected to AT&T following the Lumen acquisition. Beatty said franchisees must obtain right‑of‑way permits, name the city as an additional insured under a $2,000,000 commercial general liability policy, indemnify the city for damages, and post a $25,000 standing performance bond that the city can require be increased for larger projects.
Staff referenced the Inland Northwest regional pavement cut policy, which commonly carries a 3‑ to 5‑year warranty on roadway repairs. City staff and the city attorney said the city routinely inspects pavement cuts and can require additional bonds or project‑specific performance guarantees through right‑of‑way permitting processes. City Manager Homan and staff also said the franchise agreement cannot currently compel franchise fees because of existing state law prohibitions, though franchise fees could be negotiated if state law changes.
Councilmembers pressed staff on whether the $25,000 standing bond is adequate and whether the warranty term could be fixed at five years; staff replied the franchise allows increases for larger projects and that changing the warranty standard would require coordination under the regional policy. Staff named the city’s lead inspector, Scott Wallace, and noted past coordination with Avista and Spokane County Water District No. 3 as examples of joint planning to limit taxpayer costs.
After discussion the presiding official asked for consensus to bring the franchise forward; the council indicated support and the item was cleared to proceed to a future formal agenda for consideration. There was no recorded final ordinance vote at this meeting.
