HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005 03 07 Informational 300 Distributed by Manager McLemore
Date: March 7, 2005
The following Document was distributed by
Manager McLemore during the March 7, 2005
City Commission Workshop.
REGULATING TOWERS & WIRELESS FACILITIE.S
PRESENTED TO THE
FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES CONFERENCE
August, 2003
by
T'. ..............'H..... .. E.................. Ci..... E.................N.... .....T.... ................E....R......)
:. ......... ....,.......,., " .,.......,...;...:;. ".........,.; .'.
," . - - :. " .: - "'
. . - . ".
. '. '. " , .
'. .
. ..
. .', . ,'," .
. " - .
:.,-,.::, ......, .......- ...........,.............: ..................;.-:... '...............'......;. '....: .......: ......:. ........................;. ......:. ........
F.............O.............R........./
....... ,.0
. .
. . ,
. ..
.... - "~. ..~ ....
M.............. .., .. U.. · N.I.C...............I.. pc ,'.A'" L. S............O............L.. U. ..T....... ..............1..0,/. "N.. .....5/.......
.': . .... '. .', .: . '.. . ,".. - .",,': .: ", -: ,. :. ",
o _ . " . .,., _ . .. . .
:' .::":: :: :: : :: ;: ......,..".. . ': :-:,:::':::;'::":::
:'- .:: .: : ,": : '. ,": .. .:.:.:.:..",.:. ,."
.: :::-:: ,.;:::: .:::: /...............:. .} ,.).':' ::::::: :::,:: .:
:. ......;.; <. ..../ ; .:: .: .;:.: ..... .' .': ..:;.' ....:.. : .... :' :; .;-.'; :; ..;;-
.....:., ......... ........ .-.... -'-'-'. '.'-" .........-... ..,.... ...-.... ','- ',,'.', .,...-.-.--.-.-.-...... ................. ......... .,.'.......-....".,. .-.......-. ....... "-'.' .....'...... .... ...... ..... '.':'
....... . -- ..
Serving more than 500 communities in 1 7 states
WEB SITE: WWW.TELECOMSOL.COM
PHONE: (518) 477-8000 OR 439-3079
WHICH WOULD YOU PREFER? You DO HAVE A CHOICE !!
~l,t
An Ordinance, Permitting Process, Permitting and Agplication
Review and wlication Review and Construction Inspection
Service that make the issue Simple, Puts You in Control and
Costs You Nothing.
You can create A ' Win-Win-Win' Outcome and at the Same Time Guarantee. . .
· NO NEW TOWERS. . . UNLESS THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO AL TERNA TIVE AND THIS
CAN BE ABSOLUTELY PROVEN]
· ANY TOWER ACTUALLY PROVEN TO BE NEEDED WILL BE THE MINIMUM HEIGHT
NEEDED WITHOUT AFFECTING THE ABILITY OF MULTIPLE CARRIERS TO CO-LOCATE
ON IT
· THE COMMUNITY WILL ALWAYS BE IN ABSOLUTE CONTROL OF THE ISSUE
· THE COMMUNITY CAN DEVELOP NEW SOURCES OF NON- TAX REVENUE
· ALL OF THIS IS DONE FORNo COST TO THE COMMUNITY
IT's WORKED FOR MORE THAN 500 COMMUNITIES IN 17 STA TES. . . AND THE NA TIONAL PARK
SERVICE AND IT WILL WORK IN YOUR COMMUNITYI
The issue of towers and wireless telecommunications facilities should never
again be a problem or be a matter that you don't feel comfortable dealing with.
ANY COMMUNITY CAN TAKE A POTENTIALLY VERY SERIOUS SITUATION AND MAKE IT
VIRTUALLY INNOCUOUS
I The wireless industry has publicly acknowledged the need for at least 3-4 times the number of sites as it
has needed to- date. This will mean nearly I million (1,000,000) new sites over the next few years. As
examples of this and as the first steps in the deployment plan, one the major national carriers has just put
into place its plan to construct 7,000 new sites over the next 1 to 2 years and another carrier plans has
started deploying an additional 2,000 sites/facilities in New York State, alone.
2
Does it Work?
Read the following response to an inquiry to this question
-----Orig inal Message-----
From: Harvell, Ronne
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 12:36 PM
To: 'Renea W. Black'
Subject: RE: Response to Reference Check for Cedar Grove, FI. re Wireless Communications
Renea,
We have been associated with The Center for Municipal Solutions since 1997 and have found this
relationship to be a good one for our city. They began their association with us related to wireline
issues (cable) and then we moved into the wireless issue in 1999.
It is rather ironic in that we had been trying to develop our own regulations for tower siting for over
a year and had gone through a couple of moratorium periods with no success in developing a
workable law and were on the verge of being sued. Coincidentally, I mentioned this in a meeting
with Mr. Monroe and he indicated that his firm also provided consulting services related to wireless.
To expedite this story I will simply state that within one month of that conversation we had adopted
the ordinance that his firm provided and have had only positive results since that time.
Since its adoption we have generated over $100k in application fees alone and have processed over
40 applications for wireless facilities, better than 90% of which are co-locations that no one even
notices. So rm<<:h far often-heard concerns about kx:al ~ sWwing dorm the exprmsion if service and
deploynent if new t<<:hnohgy. CMS~ approach actually enabkd us to facilitate the expansion if service without the
negatiLe impact an the ammunity often associated with wireless facilities. In addition, we used the firm to assist
us with leases for sites on municipal properties and these leases have a combined value of over $5
million dollars.
The beauty of the whole relationship is that we have incurred no cost for basically an unfettered
access to experts in this particular field. These RF engineers, structural engineers, civil engineers and
former telecom industry executives are not something that we could have on staff. Yet with this type
of arrangement it is almost like they are on staff, because they are always available to assist and
advise us and keep us out of trouble. Essentially, if you want, you can choose to have a turnkey
arrangement where you simply designate a liaison for the community and they do the rest or you can
be as involved as you like.
Needless to say, we are quite pleased with this relationship and the results that we have achieved.
Personally I have always subscribed to the notion that if it sounds too good to be true then it
generally is, but in this particular case the adage does not hold true. This process that you are being
told about really does work and I can recommend it and the firm to you without any reservations.
Please feel free to call me at 256-341-4545 if I can be of any further assistance to you in this regard.
Ronne Harvell
3
GOAL / PURPOSE
OF REGULATING
TOWERS AND WIRELESS FACILITIES
ASSURE A RATIONAL, REASONABLE, ORDERLY ApPROACH THAT GIVES THE CARRIER
WHAT IT NEEDS. . . AND AT THE SAME TIME
ASSURES THAT ANY TOWERS OR CO-LOCATED FACILITIES HAVE THE MINIMAL VISUAL
IMPACT AND EFFECT AND PROTECTS THE NA TURE AND CHARACTER OF THE
COMMUNITY.
The Only Federal Limitations on Local Authority
1. You may not discriminate among functionally equivalent service providers
2. You may not lJrohibit or act in a manner that has the effect of prohibiting the
provision of wireless service in the community, e.g. can't be 'zoned' out
3 . You may not take an unreasonable amount Q[ time to act on application
taking into account the nature and scope of what is being requested (after a
comlJlete application is filed)
4. You may not deny an application based on RF (NIER) Emissions if the
applicant meets the FCC's standards for RF Emissions
5. A denial of an application must be in writing and be supported by
substantial evidence contained in a written record
4
What a Community May Regulate and Control
COMMUNITIES ARE PERMITTED TO REGULATE AND CONTROL All OF THE FOllOWING.
AND MORE, IF IT'S DONE CORRECTLY
WHICH OF THE FOllOWING CAN YOU JUSTIFY NOT ADDRESSING
1. Cost of Expert Assistance - No Cost to Community- Can be required to be paid for by Applicant
2. No towers on 'Speculation', i.e. without a carrier/service provider who can prove the need for the facility Note: Tower
companies (by themselves) have no 'standing 'under federal law . . . and should not under local regulations. Tower
companies have no 'need' without a carrier that has proven a need.
3. Verification/Determination of actual Need- How do you know that the Tower or Wireless Facility is really
needed? You'd probably be surprised at how many times no real need can be proven by the applicant.
4. Location - You can orioritize preferred locations. . . without violating the prohibition against 'zoning them
out'. Keep them from where you don't want them.
S. Height - Does it really have to be as tall as the service provider says? Very seldom!
6. Appearance/Visibility - A wireless facility should use the least visuallv and ohvsicallv intrusive oossible that is
not commercially or technologically impracticable.
7. Reauire co-location of facilities to minimize the number of towers - Today, a tower and other support
structures can often accommodate several times the number of carriers they have historically been able to,
thereby reducing the total number of towers needed.
8. Total Number of Sites in the Community
9. Application Fees - Amount
10. Non-tax Revenue
11. Verification of compliance with the FCC's RF Emission Safety Standards
12. Aesthetics/ Appearance - It doesn't have to be recognizable as a tower or wireless facility
13. Lighting - Lighting can be controlled and even prohibited
14. Setback
1 S. Signage
16. Screening
17. Structural Adequacy and Integrity
18. Site Security
19. Utilities (Underground versus Aerial)
20. Removal Bond (In the event the facility is ever abandoned)
21. Indemnification for use of municipally-owned property
22. Insurance
23. Interference with other communications & electronic devices
24. Inspection to assure that what is constructed is what was permitted
5
CREATING A 'WIN-WIN-WIN' SITUATION
What is the kev issue for applicants?
How can a community actually facilitate and expedite the process for the
applicant?
THE RIGHT
WIRELESS APPLICATION PROCESS
1. Applicant Approaches community
2. Community tells applicant to call consultant. Consultant handles the application from this point,
unless community staff wishes to be involved.
3. Applicant provides escrow account funds to pay for expert assistance. This is not a 'fee', since any
unexpended money is returned.
4. Set up pre-application meeting and site visit, including applicant, consultant & municipal
representative, e.g. Code Enforcement Officer or Building Inspector.
5. Applicant submits application & application fee. This is different than escrow deposit for expert
assistance.
6. Consultant reviews application and requests changes or additional information from applicant, as
may be needed or required.
7. Consultant provides recommendation vis-a-vis the grant of the Special Use Permit, with
conditions if appropriate, or denial if warranted.
8. Public hearing scheduled, ifrequired.
9. Community approves, approves with conditions, or denies Special Use Permit.
10. Consultant ensures completion of conditions of Permit and recommends issuance of Building
Permit when conditions are completed.
11. Community issues Building Permit.
12. Consultant reviews and inspects construction when complete to insure compliance with Permit,
and recommends issuance of Certificate of Compliance, Completion or Occupancy (as
appropriate ).
13. Community issues Certificate of Compliance, Completion or Occupancy.
14. Applicant initiates service.
6
MISCONCEPTIONS
For a list of the many "misconceptions", and a discussion explaining the truth
about each one, that are perpetrated by many members of the wireless industry
and the tower industry (2 different industries and treated differently under the
law) go to www.telecomsol.com and click on the "Wireless" link.
TOWERS AND WIRELESS FACILITIES. . . 1 MILLION MORE
ARE You PREPARED TO DEAL WITH THE SITUATION?
By: L.S. (Rusty) Monroe & Richard Comi
Co-Founders of The Center for Municipal Solutions
Written for PSATS (Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors)
How to minimize the number and visual impact of telecommunications towers and
wireless facilities
Most people are not aware of the fact the wireless telecommunications industry has acknowledged that it
will need as many as 1 million more facilities (i.e. sites) in the next several years. While in the short term
there are certainly issues of a more critical nature facing most communities, few will have more of a long
term, permanent impact and effect on the nature and character of a community than this issue, even if the
new facilities are co-located on existing structures. The number, placement and appearance of these
facilities goes to the heart of preserving the nature and character of a community and the effects of
today's decisions regarding these facilities will have to be lived with for decades.
What is the cause or reason for this situation? The full answer is somewhat complicated,
but a short explanation is that the carriers are deploying wireless internet access service. However, to do
so they need to eliminate the fringe or marginal areas. This is accomplished by having much smaller areas
served by each site, since due to size of the current service areas, there is often intermittent, spotty or
otherwise unreliable coverage on the fringes. Eliminating the marginal fringe areas is critical for such
services as electronic funds transfers (EFT's) where the service must be absolutely 100% reliable. (For
example, if a single digit is dropped, there are major problems.
Another cause for the situation is the fact that more and more sites no longer have the capacity to deal
with the number of calls due to the number of cell phone users and their call activity, especially during
peak times, resulting in calls being blocked or dropped. Thus, the carriers need to upgrade the capacity of
the existing sites, as well as add new sites to hand-off the excess call volume. Just these two situations
alone, internet access and the need to increase call-handling capacity, will in the near future result in 3 to
4 times the number of sites currently in the most communities. Many are already seeing a new round of
applications for new sites. For example, in a mere 150 mile by 100 mile area of western New York state,
one of the major carriers has announced that it will need an additional 1,800 sites in the next year, in
addition to the several hundred already in place.
Lastly, there are new technologies, new services and new service providers emerging that were never
even contemplated when the 1996 Telecommunications Act was adopted and when most current local
ordinances or regulations were adopted. These include, but are far from limited to, wireless high-speed
broadband access provided by wireless Local Area Networks (LAN's) and Metropolitan Area Networks
(MAN's) operating at broadband speeds, and a new service and technology known as Wi-Fi, both of
which will require many more sites than the current cellular, SMRS or PCS service. A single Wi-Fi
7
provider, in a moderately sized community of just 5 miles by 2 miles, could require as many as a dozen
sites, since the coverage is merely a few hundred yards in most instances. Imagine what the situation will
be if there are just 2 or 3 Wi-Fi providers! Even rural communities are getting between 4 and 6
applications at a time from each of the current carriers, just because of wireless internet service and a lack
of capacity of current sites, and this doesn't even count Wi-Fi and MAN ~plications.
How do you deal with the situation? By being proactive and being prepared to address it, but
in a way that enables everyone to "win" and that doesn't slow down the deployment of the new
technology or expanded coverage in the community, yet assures that the community always controls the
issue. If not addressed properly, communities will almost assuredly have many more sites than are really
needed, the sites will be more visually intrusive than necessary and the community won't know if they're
safe, i.e. built in compliance with applicable federal law, rules and regulations 2. In this context we
strongly recommend updating and revising current tower and wireless regulations to reflect the current
and anticipated situation.
It is recommended that all communities have their tower and wireless facilities ordinances or regulations
updated and revised to reflect the current and anticipated situation and the current state of the art of the
industry vis-a-vis siting of towers and wireless facilities 3. This is simply too important an issue not to be
proactive about, especially given the permanent effects on the nature and character of the community and
the economic development benefits that can accrue, ifhandled correctly.
Need for Expert Review & Analysis - A Case Study
For those who don't perceive or understand the need for expert reviews and analyses of applications,
the following is the raw data that is needed just to determine the following most basic issues:
1. If a wireless facility is needed at all;
2. If a new tower is needed, or if adjacent sites can be adjusted (reengineered) to
reduce the needed height and thus potentially eliminate the need for a new tower;
and
3. The minimum height needed to meet the needs of the applicant.
Sit. 10 Ambient T.... Antenna Used Antenna Gain Azimuth/Mechanical Radio Power per Loss -= cable + ERP per voice ERP In Watts Maximum Unable
H.lght (dBd).[A] downtltt ~~i channol (dBm) Jumper + Mise (dB) .. channel (dBm) . Power (Watts)
[e]' o. [BoC.Al
Site appUed for 7()'90ft, Allgon 7542,00 15,50 40, 120,2401 0 dog 41.00 3.43 53,07 203 203
Adjacent site 7()'90 ft, Allgon 7262,02 14,00 70,200, 3001 0 dog 41.00 4,25 50,75 11g 11g
Adjacent site 7()'90ft, Allgon 7542.00 15,50 65.210,3201 0 dog 41.00 4,25 52,25 168 168
2 The FCC's Wireless Bureau simply does not have the staff to monitor, much less police, hundreds of thousands of
sites nationally. Thus, without municipal oversight, this becomes a self-policing situation for the industry. As
Ronald Reagan said, responsible government "Trusts. . . but verifies".
3 For example, the technology now exists in certain instances to accommodate multiple carriers at the same height,
the result of which is that new towers can now be "shrunk" or significantly shorter and much less visually
intrusive, if one knows when and how to require such.
8
Assumptions for preceding calculations:
Radio Power
933012022 (NE St.m) 933012001 (Lyons) 933012121 (Bouldlng)
Maximum Tx Power (dBm)
44,5 44,5
3,5 3,5
41 41
0.315 0,315
2,2 3,02
0,315 0,315
0,6 0.6
3.43 4.25
44.5
Hybrid Combiner & FI~er loss (dB)
3.5
Effective Radio Power (dBm)
41
Losses
Top jumper loss (dB)
0.315
Main feeder (Roo center +20) D55 (dB)
3,02
(Cable toss/100' for 1 518~ cable ls 1.16 dB)
Bottom jumper D55
0,315
Connector losses
0,6
Total losses (dB)
4.25
Note: The above calculations
give the figures to catculate the
ERP (effective radiated power)
from each site at the antenna
and consklered in the batanced
link calculations. Other factors
such as polarization losses.
fade margins. body losses
affect the signal path for the
received signal at the receiver.
The preceding are the assumptions used by the applicant in calculating the Effective Radiated Power (ERP)
that need to be understood to determine the validity of the conclusions shown on a propagation study. The
issues include the most basic of issues that need to be determined, those being proving:
1. The need for the site in the first place
2. The need for a tower, or whether the facility can be co-located on an existing structure
3. The height of the facility or the height of attachment to the facility
Otherwise, the propagation studies are virtually useless from the community's perspective. Note that in this
instance several of the losses used in the calculations are incorrect, i.e. excessive, and skewed the results to
attempt to justify a new tower of 190 feet. Had the information not been provided and had the analysis not
been done by experts, the community would have had another unnecessary tower. This is intended to
demonstrate that to even address the most basic issues one must know and understand RF propagation and
the engineering data used to produce the propagation studies, as well as what the numbers and answers
should be. Understandably, the staffs of very few communities are trained in RF engineering and
propagation analysis and interpretation.
While this is not rocket science or quantum physics, as the preceding shows it is not a simple matter to
analyze and requires substantial specialized experience and expertise. If a community has the expertise in
house (technically qualified experts) to analyze this information and make a determination, it probably
doesn't need assistance. However, if it does not have its own experts who know what information to
require, what the numbers should be, how to verify the calculations and how to use the information, as well
as what less intrusive alternatives could work, then it should seriously consider getting expert assistance. If
not, the community is not even addressing the most basic issues and will have no means or hope of
controlling the matter and protecting the nature and character of the community. It will simply have a
"process" that doesn't do much more than create a "form over substance" situation and the community ends
up simply going through the motions, but with no meaningful effect.
The good news is that, if handled correctly, communities should be able to get the needed ordinance
or regulations (or revisions to their current ordinance or regulations), as well as the needed expert
9
assistance, both of which are needed to assure that the community is truly in control, at no cost to the
community .
Be Proactive! The issue of controlling towers and wireless facilities is a classic example of the need
to be proactive, since once applications are received, it's too late, as applications must be processed under
whatever regulations are in place. Given the long-term, permanent effects of not controlling the matter,
coupled with the fact that there should be no cost involved to get meaningful and effective regulations in
place and the needed expert assistance, the question becomes, "Why wouldn't the community want to do
what's necessary to take control of this issue?"
10
PROFESSIONAL BIOGRAPHIES OF PRINCIPALS
CO-FOUNDER
Lawrence (Rusty) Monroe
Mr. Monroe has 25 years experience in the cable and telecommunications field. He has spent
the past 14 years assisting, advising and representing municipalities in telecommunications
related matters. Prior to deciding to dedicate his career to representing the public sector and
"equalizing" the situation faced by local officials, he spent 11 years in the cable industry, 7
of which were as Corporate Vice President of Cablevision Industries, Inc" for which he was
largely responsible for helping to take from a small 20,000 subscriber company into the
largest privately owned cable company in the nation before it was sold for almost $3 billion
($3,000,000,000).
He was particularly well known when in the industry for assuring that control of situations
was vested in his hands, and in particular placing towers where he wanted them, almost
regardless of local regulations, and was never once taken to task for it. His work was
responsible for the placement and construction of scores of towers and microwave and other
wireless communications facilities.
Mr. Monroe has been widely published in both state and national publications, and is
regularly called upon as a lecturer to national, regional and state municipal organizations
and Bar Associations, and been a lecturer for Continuing Legal Education accredited courses
for Attorneys in New York State.
CO-FOUNDER
Richard Comi
Mr. Comi is a graduate of the Unites States Military Academy at West Point and holds an MBA
from Syracuse University. He is a former Director of Network Operations New York Telephone
and NYNEX and the former Vice President and COO of Cellular One of Upstate New York. His
knowledge of the telephone, cellular and PCS industries is virtually unique in the arena of
consultants that exclusively serve local governments. The result is the loss of the 'monopoly
of knowledge' previously held by the industry when dealing with local officials. He has
assured that clients are always in control and has prevented numerous communities from
making costly mistakes, some of which would have been virtually irreversible. In addition, his
ability to deal with operators as a true equal has resulted in gains for municipalities that they
never expected. Just one example is obtaining $2.1 million as rent for a single site located
on public property. His knowledge goes well beyond the mere technology and the operations
of a company, and includes the legal and procedural requirements associated with
telephony, cellular, PCS and paging applications and permitting.
Mr. Comi is a regular lecturer to various state and national municipal organizations
11
A Few (Geographically diverse) Client Communities
TOWER & WIRELESS FACILITIES SITING REGULATION
City of Quincy. Florida
Arleene Sheehan, Planning Director (850) 627-7681 - Ext. 226
City of Decatur. Alabama
Ron Harvelle; Revenue Officer & TelecomjR-O-W Administrator; (256) 341-4545
City of Ooelika. Alabama
Mike Moore; Revenue Officer (334) 705-5161
Barbara Patton; Mayor 334-705-5150
City of Athens. Alabama
Mignon Bowers; City Clerk (256) 233-8720
Dan Williams; Mayor 256-233-8730
City of Sheffield. Alabama
Hon. Ian Sanford, Mayor (256) 383-0250
Vince McAlister, City Attorney 256-383-4448
Clayton Kelly, City Clerk 256-383-0250
City of Gulf Shores. Alabama
Chuck Hamilton, Public Works Director (251) 968-1155
Town of Plattsburqh. New York
Andrew Abdallah; Supervisor: (518) 562-7884
Town of Beekmantown. New York
Dennis Relation; Town Supervisor (518) 563-4650 or 561-0330
Town of Cortlandt. New York
Barb Miller; Code Enforcement Officer: (914) 734-1010
County of Johnston. North Carolina
Rick Hester; County Administrator: (919) 989-5100
County of Davie. North Carolina
John Gallimore: Planner: (336) 751-3340
12