Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/23/1996 Work Session . MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1996 The City of Springfield Council met in Work Session in the Jesse Maine Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, September 23, 1996, at 6:34 p.m., with Mayor Morrisette presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Morrisette, Councilors Ballew, Beyer, Burge, Dahlquist, Maine and Shaver. Also present were City Manager Michael Kelly, Assistant City Manager Gino Grimaldi, City Attorneys Joe Leahy and Joe Trudeau, City Recorder Eileen Stein, Administrative Aide Julie Wilson and members of the staff. 1. Impact of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 on the City of Springfield. . Assistant City Manager Gino Grimaldi introduced this item and explained that City Attorney Joe Trudeau would provide background information, Planning Manager Greg Mott would provide information regarding wireless telecommunication systems and Management Analyst Len Goodwin would discuss right of way issues. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 is expected to have a significant impact on the City of Springfield. The purpose of the work session is to introduce the City Council to the Act, begin to describe the issues associated with the Act, and to identify issues and concerns of the City Council. Mr. Trudeau reviewed issues which the Council needs to consider while attempting to accommodate the growing telecommunications industry. The federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides for broad deregulation of telecommunications industry (including telephone local exchange and long distance services, cable television, cellular telephone, and data transmission). It also attempts to encourage growth in this industry by limiting restraints on competition, such as exclusive franchise fees, charges on government practices which stand as "barriers to entry" into the i~dustry. The increased activity which is already occurring in many parts of the country poses major challenges to local governments because public right of ways are often the most effective way for these businesses to reach their customers. Mr. Trudeau explained that staff would need to develop a policy statement for Council consideration, develop an ordinance and/or telecommunications plan and address zoning issues related to siting of wireless telecommunication towers. He explained that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) had rules in effect that placed controls on what the City could do and stated there had to be safety reasons for prohibiting siting of a tower. He also discussed fiber optic lines, management of public utilities, compensation for use of right of ways and zoning and permitting issues. He eXplained that staff would need to evaluate what level of staffing was needed, the impact on economic development and other aspects of the Act that may affect the City. . Mr. Trudeau eXplained that January 1, 1997 was the target date for staff to develop an ordinance. He explained that there were many resources available for use as a model He discussed the differences between how wireless towers and satellite dishes were regulated by . . . . Work Session Meeting September 23, 1996 Page 2 the FCC. He stated in this new environment, a traditional franchise may no longer be possible. Mr. Grimaldi clarified that the City has gone from being a regulator to a landlord in a sense. He discussed how the Act may effect the City's relationship with Springfield Utility Board. He explained there was ajoint meeting with SUB on October 14, 1996 to discuss telecommunications and other issues. Mr. Trudeau explained that the number of towers should be able to be regulated due to safety issues and sharing of tower space. Mr. Grimaldi briefly discussed how other cities have constructed and leased out tower space as a municipal enterprise. Councilor Burge expressed concern over the City building towers with capital funds. Mayor Morrisette asked whether a tower would be removed if a telecommunications service provider went out of business. Mr. Mott discussed the conditional use process for the siting of towers. He eXplained that the Act stated that discrimination cannot occur against providers. He explained that aesthetic concerns and the appropriateness of placing towers in certain areas were factors and circumstances that needed to be considered. He explained that the Planning Commission was reviewing the criteria and findings related to this, but stated that neighborhood compatibility was currently the only criterion under the Development Code by which tower locating decisions could be based. He explained the circumstances under which one application for siting a wireless tower was denied by the Planning Commission. Mr. Mott explained current siting decisions were based on land use considerations, not technological considerations and he questioned whether this could continue. He felt technological considerations may also have to be considered to be in compliance with the Act. He stated this staff expertise does not currently exist. Mr. Mott eXplained that he and other staff members attended a conference in July regarding the Act. Mr. Mott explained that the laws were very complex and there was not a simple outline for the regulations. Mr. Trudeau explained that due to challenges, some FCC regulations are changing. He stated that some regulations were still in a state of flux and that staff had not yet seen the final FCC rules. Councilor Burge discussed livability and aesthetics within the community. He asked what would happen as a result of non-compliance with FCC regulations and the Telecommunications Act. Mayor Morrisette questioned if staff could work with providers to determine if there were alternative locations for the placement of towers. Councilor Shaver asked about telecommunications wires. Mr. Grimaldi explained that two service providers have approached the City regarding laying lines within city limits. He . . . . Work Session Meeting September 23, 1996 Page 3 estimated some wires would be underground and some would be overhead. He added that Springfield Utility Board still owns the utility poles and is also interested in being a telecommunications service provider. Councilor Shaver commented he would like staff to be up to speed on these issues and was leaning toward a moratorium on tower siting until staff was able to become more knowledgeable and familiar with regulations related to tower siting. He discussed the option of companies doing a revenue split and building the tower to city specifications and when done, there could be some ownership options. Councilor Ballew concurred with comments made by Councilor Shaver and discussed the need to be creative in determining costs. Councilor Burge suggested both a needs and environmental assessment be conducted prior to making decisions on this issue. Councilor Beyer said she was uncertain at this point as to what role the City should have. Councilor Dahlquist agreed with all comments made. He felt a solution that was best for the citizens and the industry was most fair. Councilor Maine discussed the option of a moratorium on tower siting. She felt staff needed to take the time necessary to address this issue. Mr. Grimaldi suggested Council keep the idea of a moratorium on the table and continue to work on this issue. He stated staff would begin meeting with industry representatives to determine what the actual need was and how many tower locations might eventually be needed in the community. Mr. Leahy added that additional information was needed regarding the criteria by which a moratorium could be declared pursuant to state law. He did not feel the specific findings and facts were yet available to be able to pursue a moratorium. 2. Legislative Committee Update. Councilor Beyer explained that the Legislative Committee meeting was canceled this evening and that she had asked staff to provide an update on Ballot Measure 47. City Recorder Eileen Stein discussed Ballot Measure 47. Ms. Stein reviewed the ballot measure analysis prepared by the State Legislative Revenue Office. Mayor Morrisette stated that it was not common practice for the Council to take a stand on election issues as an elected body. He did feel it was appropriate to educate the citizens on relevant ballot measures though. Ms. Stein stated she was looking for direction from Council regarding organization and participation in public education efforts related to this measure. . . . .. .. ~ Work Session Meeting September 23, 1996 Page 4 Councilor Burge did not feel it was appropriate to do anything more or less than what is normally done. He felt it was not the proper role of the Council to take a position on ballot measures and felt, specifically, on this measure, that it might produce a contrary result. Councilor Beyer felt the Council should look at what they did, as an elected body, related to Ballot Measure 5. Mayor Morrisette felt it would be good to participate although, if Council did not support this, he would support that position. Councilor Dahlquist did not support Council taking a stand as a body. He felt each Council member could provide education on an individual basis. Councilor Ballew discussed the option of asking staff to provide information regarding impacts of the measure. Councilor Maine felt that this would be more of a Budget Committee issue and did not feel it was appropriate to ask staffto research this at this time. Mr. Grimaldi commented that staff would check into the implementation date and expressed concern about how a cost cutting exercise would impact employee morale if it was conducted at this point. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Minutes Recorder - Julie Wilson B~iiL~ Mayor Attest: ~h~*- Eileen Stein City Recorder