Official lviinute$ of MARIONCo.UNTY,BOARD OF 'COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. December 14,'2016

Transcription

1 Official lviinute$ of MARIONCo.UNTY,BOARD OF 'COUNTY COMMISSIONERS December 14,'2016,CALL TO ORDER: 'The Marion County Board of County Commissioners met in a workshop session in, Commission Chambers at 3:13 p.m. on Wednesday, December 14, 2016 at the Marion County Governmental Complex located in Ocala, Florida. INTRODUCTION OF WORKSHOP BY CHAIRMAN: CARL ZALAK, III Chairman Zalak advised that the workshop was scheduled this afternoon to discuss cell towers and Right of Way (distributed antenna systems for wireless technology coverage). PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of our Country. ROLL CALL Upon roll call the following members were present: Chairman Carl Zalak, Dlstrictd; Vice Chairman Kathy Bryant, District 2; Commissioner Jeff Gold: District 3; and Commissioner Michelle Stone, District 5. Commissioner David Moore, District 1; was absent. Also present was County Administrator Mounir Bouyounes. OPENING' REMARKS - Mounir Bouyounes, PE, County Administrator County Administrator Mounir Bouyounes advised that based on the information the Board. of County Commissioners (BCC) received at the Florida Association of Counties (FAC) Conference, as well as some conversation he had with Commissioners individually, this is a good opportunity to bring the Board up to date as to what is going on in Marion County.and the type of applications staff has been dealing with. He noted companies are going to different counties throughout the State trying to pull those type of permits. The county,. has some language in place in the zoning and permitting process. Mr. Bouyounes advised that the County' Engineer and Growth Services Director are present to provide an update on the rules that are in place and the applications they are dealing with in regard to this issue. He noted staff is also seeking instruction from the Board as to what direction they want to go forward from here. PRESENTAnos The Deputy Clerk received the following documents: a 1 page Agenda outline; and a 22 page handout entitled, "Land Development Code Article 4, Section Administrative Tower Permits". Sam Martsolf, Growth Services Director Growth Services' Director Sam Martsolf referred to the Land Development Code (LDC) handout, noting in the not too distant past the Board had several tower applications each year and in some cases several per month as each of the industries were dealing with coverage issues.. The Board would be presented with elaborate rings, similar to the Parks gaps, to demonstrate a need for a tower in that location, which was normally met with a tremendous amount of opposition from surrounding property owners. There was also a lot of competition within the industry. The Code was in place and' staff had a lot of Book V, Page 1287

2 December 14, 2016 experience with the applications, but of late the shift has changed to capacity, which he understands that the Board found a good bit about at the FAC Conference. With the new smart phones, the data requirements are so high that it is 'as much a capacity issue as it,is a coverage issue now. Staff is seeing two ways to deal with the capacity issue; one is more towers, which is very expensive as it requires an elaborate Federal and Florida Communication Commission (FCC) permitting process, as well as the local-permitting process. 'One of the alternatives that technology has provided for the industry is more of the lower,'power antennas, which is very easy to see that application in an urban setting because it is building-to-building or existing towers or structures-to-structures, Where 'it gets really confusing and where there are more questions than answers is in the rural setting, like the companies who have applied with Growth Services staff. -\,Mr. Martsolf advised that the department has had 1 company come to them and they have dealt with them on and off, for about 1 year. The company comes with somewhat of a sales pitch and staff sends them away asking them to come back with a detail and aerial as to a pilot project so they can see what it will look like on the ground._ Staff wants to know how the company will deal with trees and everything about it and then look at a, specific site; if it works then it can be installed. The Code was set up for this type of thing, as there are 2 options under the Code for Administrative Permit. One is for antenna support structure (i.e., water tower); there are about 8 users on the county's water tower at Silver Springs, which provides a lot of income per month. These antenna support structures also includes any' existing type poles or high structures/buildings. The second option is a new tower that can be approved administratively for towers under 150 feet in l1eight; although there is a fairly elaborate list of requirements. The requirements include priorities; the 2 top pricrities are included in the backup information and are: 1) antennas on existing towers; and 2) antennas on existing support structures, in that order, Mr. Martsolf advised that the Code sends staff in that direction any time when an application is received, noting they would much rather see an antenna on an existing structure. Further location priorities go to county and other government property. There are several specific sections in the Code on positions in the rights-of-way: (ROW). Currently, there is a mechanism for staff to deal with this administratively, which requires a lot of the same things that big towers require, such as: need, a user, demonstrate why you cannot go on any of those other prioritized locations or any other existing structure.' Staff has maps of towers all over the county and an applicant must show why they cannot go on that tower, as the towers are required to provide collocations. ' Mr. Martsolf commented on the single-application that was in Ft. McCoy, on the zoning side, noting the ROW side had several applications; and was in front of Cougar Park, Staff's first question would have been why they could not go on county property and demonstrate why and administratively, the second question would be why they could not go on the tower that is 1,500 feet up the road as it has available space. He noted that was the last meeting staff,had with the company and is what they are working on, as far 'as staff is aware. Mr. Martsolf advised that internally, staff is waiting on the company to come back. He 'stated the data is needed since so many have smart phones. Mr. Martsolfstated his preference for this on a pilot project basis in a place where there is no alternative and staff is very encouraging as they see the need. The problem with the rural setting is that it comes down to the dollar; it is extremely cheap to add them on existing structures as Page 1288, Book V

3 December 1'4, 2016 there is no permitting; however, finding an ideal location is a problem as an area might not be populated enough to support the money and time it would take. PRESENTATION - Tracy Straub, PE, County Engi,neer County Engineer Tracy Straub, Office of the County Engineer (OCE), advised that everything Mr. Martsolf indicated is consistent with what County Engineer staff has learned. The folks that presented at the FAC are the same as those who came to staff; however, they submitted 4 ROW Applications through the county's ROW Division, which means they wanted to put a pole in the ROW. The company was brought into a meeting with ace and Growth Services staff because of the cell tower provisions in the Code. The company made a separate application for a 5 th location to Zoning (Growth Services) for use in the ROW. Installing a traditional cell tower is one thing, at an off-site location, private property, or something similar, uses the straiqhtforward zoning provisions, but staff has to be very cautious when someone is asking to use the "county's ROW for a facility. Staff wants to have a good understanding that companies truly are recognized as a Utility, as utilities do belong in the ROWand that they are that service. Staff does not have that clear understanding from the company at this time.,. Under certain circumstances the county needs that ROW for its own use and whenever someone goes into the ROW the county may find it has to pay for relocations or having to deal with it in general as it constrains other utilities coming in or other improvements to go in the ROW. Ms. Straub referred tothe picture in the Agenda packet labeled, "Sample Picture, 1. Actual Permit Request" that came from an application that the company submitted. She noted the company does not have a good understanding of construction in the ROW. The company is asking to put the pole at the edge of the pavement, which is within the clear zone. Other utilities understand the need for placement, in certain places, relative to the edge of pavement to ensure a good area for recovery; and power poles typically go at the rear line. When the company came in and initially spoke with staff, and some of the pictures presented at FAC, showed what was consistent with perhaps a 35 foot pole; however, this application and all other applications are for 120 foot tall poles. Ms. Straub stated she certainly cannot allow placement there, but if the company gets permission as a Utility then looking at that rear ROW line becomes something staff can work with. BOARD DISCUSSION Commissioner Bryant noted Ms. Straub brings up a very valid point in regard to the ROW and that is where the county has to be extremely careful. She opined that the company is trying to go this route and establish themselves as a Utility so they have a right to put a pole in the ROW. Chairman Zalak questioned the mechanisms in the ROW that the county can use. He asked if the county can charge people considered as a Utility for use of the ROW or if they can be forced to collocate. Ms. Straub stated there are a couple of things the county can do, noting the county can force collo.cation.. She advised that different fees are charged based on the type of utility. The county charges basic ROWPermit fees in some cases for a Utility running lines and placing poles. The ROW Permits start at $30 and are _not much more than that in any particular case. A communication service provider pays a franchise service fee and are not charged for a Utility Permit. The company being addressed at this time does not fit that description just yet, but other telephone Book V, Page 1289

4 December 14, 2016 'communications do and they are not charged. The ace is not exactly sure what the company will get thems,elvesestablished as and therefore how they will be addressed. In response to Chairman Zalak, Ms. Straub stated she is not sure' that being a telecommunication' service provider pays because they are running wires, but opined they pay because' of the service being provided throughout the US. She advised that. the county charges $30 a linear foot, but not for telephone companies. ' County Administrator, Mounir Bouyounes stated beyond that, the communication' providers has been addressed in Statutes and are exempt from permit fees, butdo pay the franchise fee, which covers that cost.. Chairman Zalak asked if staff is allowing them to locate in the ROW. Ms. Straub advised that staff needs additional information at this time, noting the location provided by the company cannot be allowed. Chairman Zalak inquired if staff would allow the company to put a 30 foot pole in the ROW. Ms: Straub stated the company has not demonstrated that they are a Utility and 'unless this Board takes a different action to approve that request,the county. only allows Utilities within the ROW. The county has set a precedent to stop others from using the county's ROW for their business purposes. Chairman Zalak advised that he wants to make sure that the company cannot build in the ROW at this time, until getting that determination and orice they do he questioned what regulations will be in place. Ms. Straub stated staff is going to look for them to go at the far back on the ROW, as well as looking for them to collocate wherever there is an existing facility arid because they are a tower, so to speak, it is assumed that anything above the 25 feet to 30 feet type of normal height will 'get caught up in the zoning permitting process. Ms. Straub stated she would like to encourage the company to seek private property, just like other cell phone towers. Chairman Zalak stated the Board will wait to hear from staff, noting they will keep the Board updated at the Legislative Session. Ms. Straub noted staff will be watching this through the Legislative Session. She stated she will be looking to protect the ROWand then following those rules as they move forward, Chairman Zalak inquired if the permits filled out by applicants acknowledges that they are responsible to move poles if the county expands. Ms. Straub stated applicants are responsible for relocations. Chairman Zalak stated the county does not want to run into issues where it has to pay for relocations, like some power companies have tried to do in the past. Ms. Straub advised that is a different legislative issue that is out there running. Mr. Bouyounes stated the purpose of today's workshop was to have this discussion and see if the Board has any different directions for staff.. Chairman Zalak stated the county is not going to permit anything in the ROW until they are declared a Utility and when they do the county will have to make sure legislatively that it is not forced to have to pay for relocation. He questioned why they cannot be on power poles and if that is not something the,county can encourage Legislators to pass. Commissioner Gold questioned the height of a power pole. Ms. Straub stated power poles range in height, generally between 20 feet to 40 feet. She noted this application is for a 120 foot tower. Ms.' Straub commented on poles in the ROWand questioned tree clearances needed, which is important. Chairman Zalak stated the county can regulate tree clearances. Ms. Straub agreed that the county can regulate tree clearances that are in the county's ROW. Chairman ZaJak asked if the company can trim a neighbor's tree that is in the HOW. Ms. Straub stated that is a conversation with the neighbor. Mr. Bouyounes noted that is some Page 1290, Book V

5 December 14, 2016' of the consequences the county needs to think about. Ms. Straub advised that staff does not know if there is enough room to -get the pole/tower up or if they need to' be able to.clear communicate. Chairman Zalak opined that once the antenna is above the treed canopy they should be okay, technically. Ms.. Straub stated staff does not know the technology... Mr. Martsolf.stated the company cannot answer if they need line of sight, nor can they provide any examples. Staff is also not able to find any examples of a rural application. He opined that is because there are just not enough people to demand it. Mr. Martsolf advised that from what he has read from jurisdictions that are viewing them as a Utility is that they still have to provide need and a committed user. He noted these folks seem to be building the infrastructure withoutany user. CLOSING COMMENTS There being' no further business to come before the Board, the meeting thereupon adjourned at.3:31 p.m. Attest: ~. C~Chairman Book V, Page 1291

6 December 14, 2016 ".' THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK." ~. Page 1292, Book V