Build a tower into the air…
…And people will see it from everywhere If you’re in the radio business, you’re in the tower business. You may call it wireless, PCS or SMR, but it’s all radio. And to make a radio system work, you need a network of sites and towers. (Here’s the answer to municipal planners’ first question: “No, we can’t just use one really tall tower conveniently located out in the country or in another city.”) Everybody, it seems, wants to be in the radio business, and additional sites are essential for the survival of wireless providers. For the “small block” and narrowband providers, like cellular (Remember when cellular was a fat cat?), more sites are needed to accommodate more users through channel reuse. “Big block” providers need more sites to expand service areas and Internet link-ups to keep pace with marketing promises. Private users, such as our small community, need more sites simply to keep pace with city expansion.
Clearly, then, this seems like a simple problem of securing adequate construction financing and educating the local governmental entities about the necessity for (and entitlement of) wireless tower construction. So a new entity, the “site procurement firm,” is contracted and sends its “people” to the local planning commission meeting. It’s often in this venue that the baking soda meets the vinegar. The site firms feign ignorance of their client’s RF system (usually, it’s not an act) and deny any empowerment to discuss site alternatives. Often a local, high-powered, red-faced attorney represents the wireless client, which can further disengage local sympathy. In many cases it’s become an example of an irresistible force meeting an immovable object.
It doesn’t always need to be this bad. In fact, public safety managers are in a unique position to avoid these problems altogether. Public safety relies extensively on radio communications and has the same need for tower space as our commercial sector counterparts.
In our own city, realizing the need for additional commercial sites (along with the need for additional city radio sites), several of our staff members met and discussed the prospect for a city-coordinated tower site development plan. Eventually, we developed a simple plan that was adopted within two months of its initial presentation in 1996. >From the city’s perspective, our key to success so far has been the inclusion of people from three departments: planning, legal and public safety (where Radioman resides.) Bill Meyer is the bright director of planning and development for Lenexa. He is not only even-tempered and visionary, but practical as well, and his careful guidance helped create a balance between the city’s roles as “landlord” and “regulator.” Eric Arner is the assistant city attorney who had been handling franchise fees and rights-of-way access, so he was a natural choice for this project.
The siting guidelines our city adopted are simple and have four components: 1. As practical, we want to minimize the number of towers in the city. 2. Where possible, users should co-locate. (Planning requires structures capable of supporting three carriers). 3. Tower siting and construction must comply with established planning guidelines regarding land use, permitting, construction and appearance. 4. As appropriate, we try to leverage the city’s financial interests with tower users whenever possible.
Our first public-private partnership based on these guidelines evolved from a request by Aerial Communications to rent space on a city-owned, 180-foot Rohn 55 guyed tower. The existing tower couldn’t handle the antenna load, so we discussed the prospects for Aerial to build a suitable monopole at the same site. An agreement was crafted and plans were drawn to construct a five-carrier, 180-foot monopole and to develop a suitable site to accommodate six shelters or equipment pads. Construction financing was provided entirely by Aerial in exchange for abatement of site rent for an agreed-upon time.
Our second joint project was with Southwestern Bell Wireless (SWBW). SWBW wanted to sever a lease at a nearby site, and the city needed a new site to replace an aging elevated water tank. Again, SWBW provided all the construction financing to erect a 180-foot monopole and to remodel a 1,200-square-foot shelter in exchange for abated site rent. Our third project was also with SWBW and involved building a new tower in a (gasp!) public park. The project started off with SWBW offering to build an expensive silo near a decorative red barn in the park. It evolved into replacing an existing tower at a fire station contiguous to the property.
In all three cases, there has been mutual benefit to both parties in the development agreements. The city now owns three new towers, and the wireless providers have assured their site occupancy for 10 years. Additionally, the process was expedited by public-private cooperation because members of the planning commission were also involved on the “front end.” Because the towers were designed and built for future growth and substantial extra capacity, the city now acts as a landlord and rents space to additional wireless users. Currently, the city is realizing annual revenues of nearly $108,000. Not only is this “windfall” a direct benefit to the taxpayers, but a portion of it has been earmarked for future site-development partnerships and site maintenance. Also, the availability of developed tower sites allows the city to encourage and foster deployment of high-speed wireless Internet access. Again, in this “win-win” scenario, the wireless provider has the city as a venture “partner,” and the city has access to high-tech services.
With its own needs-and the city’s development interests-in mind, public safety can go a long way toward striking a balance between often adversarial participants who are all striving for the same thing. n
