Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />FEBRUARY 26~ 1997 <br />The City Planner reported it was staff's understanding <br />from the workshops on this ordinance that co-locations <br />of antennas on existing towers would be by <br />administrative permit. The proposed ordinance is not <br />clear in this regard. The Planner felt such a <br />provision would encourage co-locations. <br />Scalze asked if there was anyone from the general <br />public interested in speaking on this matter. <br />Trevor Blaska, Steven Bernstein Associates, <br />representing Sprint, reported that they have reviewed <br />the proposed ordinance and are in agreement with it <br />except for one provision. The provision which presents <br />a problem is paragraph H. Obsolete or Unused Towers and <br />Antennas. Blaska reported that requiring a performance <br />bond or letter of credit to cover the cost of removal <br />of a tower, antennas, and accessory facilities placed <br />on undue burden on the company as well as City staff to <br />track these bonds over a long period of time. Blaska <br />also indicated it is sometimes difficult to collect on <br />bonds and letters of credit. Blaska suggested as an <br />alternative the City provide in the ordinance that an <br />obsolete or unused tower and antenna would be deemed a <br />nuisance. In the event a vendor would walk away from <br />such a tower without removing it, the City could use <br />State Statutes to have the equipment removed as a <br />dangerous and unsafe structure. This is how the City <br />of woodbury approaches the issue. <br />Dale Runkel, Steven Bernstein Associates, pointed out <br />the issue is how to protect the City's interest. <br />Runkel indicated that over the past year they have <br />worked with a number of communities, including <br />Bloomington and Woodbury, on tower ordinances. The use <br />of State Statutes for removal of obsolete and unused <br />towers and antennas allows the City to get the <br />equipment down without City expense. Runkel reported <br />that they are working on a model ordinance, and in that <br />ordinance are proposing the use of State Statutes for <br />this very issue. Runkel again stated the difficulty in <br />tracking and renewing letters of credits and bonds. <br />Runkel felt the use of State Statutes results in the <br />least amount of paperwork for everyone involved in <br />addressing the one or two instances where unused towers <br />or antennas are not removed. This mechanism will cover <br />the City's costs. <br />Scalze asked if Sprint had any towers on public lands <br />where the use of State Statutes would not be an option. <br />6 <br />