The changes included:
2 103Q (1) Definitions: Clarification of the
definition of AGL (Above Ground Level) - added from ground at base of
6 103Q (2)a. Co-location requirements - what area had to
7 103Q (3) Construction Requirements: Changed to state
“qualified Radio Frequency Engineer.”
9 103Q (5)e Setbacks Added “surface mounted panel.”
10 103Q (6). Height Limitations. Changed description and
added AGL and the title of Comprehensive Plan.
10 103Q (6) final paragraph. Height Limitations Added
“surface mounted panel.”
12 103Q (12) Interference with Public Safety Communications.
Changed to “preliminary” intermodulation study.
13 103Q (13) a (3) Additional Submittal Requirements.
Clarified “capacity, ability to allow co-location.
14 103Q (15) Applicant Bonds. Added “Applicant” prior to
Les Mangus stated that Norman Manley,
City Attorney, is hesitant about a bond, as a bond could last 50 years or
more. Norman Manley suggested enforcement like any other ordinance, certify
abatement of a nuisance to taxes. Les Mangus did not feel that would be a
good idea because the cost of removal could exceed the value of the property,
and no recovery of expenses would be seen by the City by Sheriff’s sale of
the property for unpaid taxes. He also stated that on some land, towers are
on are only a small portion of a parcel of land.
Jim Orr asked that Les Mangus explain
the bond amounts. Les Mangus suggested we talk to wireless communication
facility builders about the cost of tearing down facilities to ascertain a
price for removal. Les Mangus also stated that Norman Manley stated there is
no problem with a registration fee as long as it covers our costs to oversee,
do paperwork, inspect the property, etc.
Charles Malcom asked what Wichita did about a registration fee. Les Mangus stated that this issue was not addressed
Charles Malcom asked if Bill King
could speak to the issue. The Chairman received a consensus of the
Commissioners and he was permitted to speak to the issue.
Mr. King stated that in his wireless
communication facility lease, the lease requires the lessee to remove
footings and towers. He also stated that some provision indeed needs to be
made for wireless communication facility removal. He stated that costs are
always an issue for a business man, included costs of bonds and
Les Mangus stated that bond could only
be 1-5% of the cost of tearing down of a facility.
Jim Orr stated that the conclusion
from the sub-committee meeting was that the bond and application was not in
this document’s scope and should be addressed in a separate document.
Motion was made by Charles Malcom to recommend the
Review Criteria for Wireless Communication Facilities to the City Council.
Quentin Coon seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0.