Print
E-Mail
tool name
closeCouncil to wait until the fall
Decision on broadcasting city council meetings on television, Internet to wait until the budget sessions
Chris Albert
The Puyallup City Council decided 4-3 that the decision on broadcasting Puyallup City Council meetings will have to wait until its budget session sometime in October.
The council made the decision during a workshop on Aug. 19 at Puyallup City Hall.
“I’d like to see this go through our budget (process)” said Councilmember Tami Brouillet.
Mayor Don Malloy and Councilmembers Mike Deal and Kathy Turner echoed those sentiments.
It should be a goal the council strives for but there needs to be a funding mechanism in place, Turner said.
Known options estimate the cost to broadcast at about $100,000 for the first year.
“Reality is we may not be able to afford it,” said Deputy Mayor George Dill. “I think we need to make every effort to include this in our budget talks.”
To broadcast council meetings, the city would have to purchase camera equipment for a one time cost of about $40,000. The equipment would be compatible with several broadcasting options, said City Manager Gary McLean.
The annual cost to broadcast would be about $62,000 in various forms. To televise the meetings on cable there is a $31,000 membership fee and $31,000 subscription fee, either paid directly by the city or as a $0.25 subscription charge to cable users in the area.
The option to stream video online would cost an up front fee of about $36,000 and about $1,800 per month.
Councilmember Rick Hansen said the council has been skirting around this issue for too long and another delay is not needed.
“I feel very strongly about it,” he said.
Hansen said he prefers broadcasting on cable and then seeing if the city can implement Web casting.
“It’s an incredibly important tool,” he said. “I think we’ve put it off for way too long.”
Broadcasting would open up the doors of the council to more people and allow them another way to be included in the discussions that shape the city, he said.
“This is going to be swept into the black hole like many things,” said Councilmember John Knutsen.
Waiting for the budget sessions is not a matter of being for or against broadcasting, Turner said.
It’s a matter of being fiscally responsible and identifying a funding source to pay for the equipment and service, she said.
It may also provide an opportunity to learn about more service options, she added.
Dill suggested the city put forth a “good faith” effort and work to incrementally pay for the broadcasting by identifying and using available funds now to purchase the camera equipment and figuring out how to pay for the service during the budget sessions.
McLean said he does not know where those funds would come from, but would be more able to provide an answer at the council’s next meeting, Sept. 23.
The motion failed 3-4 with Hansen, Knutsen and Dill in the minority.
In the meantime, the council passed 4-3 to place a survey on the next newsletter and Web site inquiring about if residents wanted the meetings broadcasted and if they would pay the $0.25 subscription fee to receive the broadcast or should that be something the city pays for with the funds its already collected.
Hansen, Knutsen and Dill were in the minority. After the motion was passed, Hansen said he had reservations about what the language of the survey would be because he felt it could influence how people respond.
Malloy suggested, he talk to whoever comes up with the language so he is satisfied.