Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-005 JeffCom Telecommunications Tower at City Reservoir SiteResolutiarz 10-005 Cell Tower-Leccse Page ! of 3 RESOLUTION NO. 10-005 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO PARTNER WITH JEFFCOM FOR A TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER AT THE CITY RESERVOIR SITE, AND NOT TO LEASE TO VERIZON RECITALS: A. This Resolution concerns approval of the recommendation of the Special Projects Committee concerning location of a cell tower at the City reservoir site. (The site is at the west end of town, and is not the abandoned reservoir site on Morgan Hill.) Council on November 16, 2009 referred cell tower lease issues to the Special Projects Committee (Randels, Medlicott, and King). The Committee met February 19, 2010 on this matter. This Resolution, consistent with the Committee recommendation, states the Council determination not to enter into a lease with Verizon for a Verizon tower, but for the City to partner with JeffCom for JeffCom to erect a tower that would accommodate Verizon as well as public interests (JeffCom, municipal broadband, RadioPT acid others). B. Verizon is seeking a lease with the City to locate a tower on the site. Verizon is unwilling to agree to terms the City believes are reasonable, including, rent amount and payment of sublease fees. Verizon is offering the City $1,333/month, which City staff and the Committee feel is too low. In 2008, Verizon negotiated a lease for a facility in Olympia (using a Lacey water tank) for $2,000 a month. Verizon is unwilling to pay a percentage of sublease fees, which City staff and the Committee feel should be included in a lease. Sublease fees are fees paid to the tower owner by a co-locator (a second entity that locates equipment on a tower owned by someone else). In the City's lease with T- Mobile (entered into in1999 with a predecessor of T-Mobile, for a tower and space at the reservoir site), the City receives a percentage (20%) of sublease fees. T-Mobile' s sublease of tower space to ATT and Sprint results in about $10,000/year paid to the City (in addition to the lease fees T-Mobile pays to the City). Verizon's position is they are unwilling to accept this term. The tradeoff, per Verizon, is that the City gets to negotiate a new ground lease with another entity seeking to co-locate on Verizon's tower. But with the T-Mobile, which pays a sublease fee, the City also has a ground lease with the co- locator. C. JeffCom also needs a facility at the site for emergency communications. Verizon is willing to allow JeffCom on a Verizon tower at no cost. The City would like Verizon to accommodate other governmental and community uses on a Verizon tower at uo cost. Verizon is unwilling to do this unless the entity pays sublease fees to Verizon (which, per above; Verizon is unwilling to share with the City as lessor). D. The Committee, supported by the City Manager, finds that the outcome that best serves the City and other public interests is for JeffCom to build a tower on the site, with Verizon locating on this tower if it chooses (but without getting to build its own tower). Resolution /0-005 Cet! Tawer Lease Pctge 2 of 3 JeffCom's tower costs (estimated cost of $225,000, which JeffCom has funding for)) are offset to the extent it receives rent from Verizon or other commercial renters for lease of tower space. Based on information the City received from Verizon on rents Verizon would charge a co-locator, Verizon co-location rents should be comparable to rents from a ground lease with Verizon for Verizon to put up a tower (about $2,000/month). An unknown is whether Verizon will choose not to locate on this tower and seek to locate somewhere other than the reservoir site. E. Under a conceptual proposal preliminarily negotiated by the City Manager between the City and JeffCom. JeffCom would not pay ground rent to the City, but in return, the City and JeffCom would (similar to the receipt of sublease fees) share rents from commercial co-locators of tower space, and the tower would accommodate other City and community users at no cost. F. A JeffCom tower would accommodate not only JeffCom (and Verizon), but also City interests for the location of municipal broadband and the nonprofit community FM station at no cost. There may be other governmental co-locators in the future who want tower space (City Public Works Department, Sheriff and other County Departments, PUD, and others). These uses can be accommodated at no cost or with fees paid to the City, and not co-location fees paid to Verizon fox locating on a Verizon tower. G. A JeffCom tower would allow space for Verizon on the tower at the same approximate height as Verizon seeks under its own request. This is approximately 150' on a 160' pole. (The existing T-Mobile pole is also 160'.) H. Under the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("TCA"), a municipality cannot enact regulations or requirements that prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any carrier to provide telecommunications service. Whether this applies to a lease of City property (as opposed to a zoning regulation) is open to question. But even if it does, Verizon is not precluded from providing service (since it can co-locate on the JeffCom tower). It is only precluded from erecting its own tower. I. City code encourages co-location of telecommunications facilities to reduce the number of such facilities. A ,ieffCom tower which accommodates the municipal interests as well as providing space for Verizon results in two towers at the City reservoir site (T-Mobile and JeffCom) and not three towers to accommodate the identified interests (T-Mobile, Verizon, and a third public tower for the other public interests besides JeffCom which could locate on a Verizon tower). J. The JeffCom Board at its meeting on February 25, 2010 stated its support of the approach outlined above. Under draft terms proposed by the City Manager, and approved in concept by the Special Projects Committee, the City and JeffCom would enter into an agreement generally as follows: 1. JeffCom obtains space at no cost to erect a tower and locate its ground equipment. 2. JeffCom erects tower at its cost Resolution fU-005 Cell Tawer Lease Page 3 of 3 Tower accommodates a. JeffCom b. Municipal Broadband c. Verizon d. RadioPT e. Other City equipment (for example, Public Works Department, which seeks an antenna on a tower at the reservoir site) 4. All users (except Verizon) are at no cost to user. 5. Rent from future commercial eo-locators on the tower would be divided between JeffCom and the City. K. JeffCom has commenced engineering for a new tower, and could erect a tower within about four weeks of obtaining a City permit. City permitting could be accomplished in two months or less. Environmental analysis is concluded. Verizon's pending application for a permit could be included in permitting a JeffCom tower. L. The Council by this Resolution gives conceptual approval to partner with JeffCom on terms set forth above. Any agreement on final terms with JeffCom is subject to City Council approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Port Townsend as follows: The City Council approves the recommendation of the Special Projects Committee to partner with JeffCom on locating a telecommunications tower at the City reservoir site, and gives conceptual approval to the terms set forth in the Recitals of this Resolution. Any agreement on final terms with JeffCom is subject to City Council approval. 2. The City Council by this Resolution declares it intent not enter into a lease with Verizon for Verizon to locate a tower at the reservoir site. At commercially-reasonable rates, Verizon may co-locate on the JeffCom tower and lease ground from the City for its equipment. ADOPTED by Uie City Council of the City of Port Townsend at a regular meeting thereof, held this first day of March 2010. -~~~~ ~~~ Michelle Sandoval, Mayor Atte Approved as to form: Pamela Kolacy, MMC ~ John P. Watts City Clerk City Attorney