|
Attachment D
<br />�� Mr. Heiser addressed the currently extended tower, and existing service providers and the over $100,000 in
<br />5^ annual revenue realized by the City from that pole. Mr. Heiser advised that engineering analyses put the existing
<br />55 tower at full capacity, creating another issue for existing providers for the next generation of technology, and their
<br />5� pending need to address that even on the current tower. Mr. Heiser advised that the proposed new tower could
<br />5� help accommodate expansion needs of users on the existing tower.
<br />s3 Mr. Heiser clarified that the contract would be negotiated before City Council action on this request; with the City
<br />7:� Council ultimately having approval rights of the contract, with that consideration providing a full financial and
<br />e^ benefit analysis. Mr. Heiser noted that the City currently realized revenue from the City Hall Campus tower, as
<br />�` well as towers at the Fainriew water tower, and AltaVista, with current revenues of about $375,000 in total.
<br />s? Discussion between staff and Commissioners included other tower capacities and their 3-legged construction and
<br />c: height of 180' versus the proposed 150' monopole on the City Hall Campus; desire of this applicant and other
<br />6^ providers to locate on existing sites, rather than to pursue less cost-effective construction and time-consuming
<br />�� land use approvals; needs in the area to complete cellular and wireless networks to provide improved coverage
<br />:;�� for users; additional proposal coming before the Commission at tonighYs meeting for consideration of a tower in
<br />,, Acorn Park; and screening and construction materials for the ground equipment.
<br />,.. Applicant Representative, Tony Vavoulis, (740 Linwood Avenue, St. Paul)
<br />i;�, Mr. Vavoulis advised that the proposed monopole structure was simple; that negotiations were being initiated with
<br />,'^ City staff, with Clearwire, if this application was approved, building the tower and then transferring ownership to
<br />?' the City, with the City then having full rights to lease space to whomever the City wished, based on conditions
<br />!? protecting Clearwire's transmission requirements with those of future users; with Clearwire recovering their initial
<br />%3 investment through lower �ease rates, but ultimately making lease payments similar to other providers. Mr.
<br />- Vavoulis noted that these contract negotiations were separate from tonighYs land use request.
<br />�5 Mr. Vavoulis advised that Clearwire was currently looking at space on the Fairview tower, with leases in their final
<br />i: form, as well as at AltaVista; with both contracts being presented to the City Council in the near future for their
<br />� � consideration. Mr. Vavoulis advised that, in addition to the other request on tonighYs agenda (at Acorn Park),
<br />�:� Clearwire was considering one other private existing monopole in the City that they were hoping to co-locate on,
<br />-�� with their company considering four hundred (400) locations throughout the overall metropolitan area to provide
<br /><<c: high power wireless Intemet service network.
<br />� Discussion between Mr. Vavoulis and Commissioners included types of users on each tower; City Code
<br />Y;? provisions preferring multi-user towers to avoid additional towers; negotiations of future potential users on the
<br />-�:s tower would involve the City, not Clearwire; estimated distance of one-and-a-half to two miles from the City Hall
<br />, Campus to Acorn Park; maximum signal radius distance as detailed in Section 5.2 of the staff report; the overall
<br />?:� grid used by Clearwire to determine antennae locations for best coverage; lower power of Internet networks than
<br />.'s�� that of cellular requiring a tighter grid; and the original request of Clearwire for a 120' tower at Acorn Park.
<br />�_ , Mr. Vavoulis advised that Clearwire only needed a maximum height of 120'; but in attempting to work with the
<br />i?� City, based on their Code for multiple users; and their business model in seeking revenue potential, the City was
<br />�?9 requesting the higher tower (150') to provide a viable product in the market to host multiple users.
<br />`>c Commissioner Wozniak sought clarification from Mr. Heiser on technological benefits to the City's Public Works
<br />> i crews in obtaining wireless Internet service at either of the proposed towers or others within the City.
<br />'? Mr. Heiser advised that the City's Water Department had been exploring for years the possibility of AMR for
<br />�? � wireless reading of water meters, a task still performed manually by personnel. Mr. Heiser noted that there were a
<br />.; number of products developed over the last few years, allowing for more efficient monitoring of various equipment
<br />:� � (e.g., lift stations) within the City; with the City's IT Department more involved in supervisory management of the
<br />��;, City's SCADA system for the monitoring. Mr. Heiser further noted that, in addition to the City itself, Roseville
<br />:» supported twenty (20) other cities on their IT network, and involved with each of those cities in monitoring their
<br />'�:� equipment as well, requiring central locations throughout the community to communicate with home readers. Mr.
<br />�-;� Heiser advised that the City of Roseville's northwest quadrant was still a challenge, and would probably require a
<br />i i::, cooperative agreement with the City of St. Anthony or the City of New Brighton to accommodate wireless reading
<br />�:, ' of those meters, since the Fairview water tower didn't have the required " signal reach°. Mr. Heiser noted that,
<br />i.�-� among those twenty (20) cities dependent on the City of Roseville's IT Department, that encompassed over sixty-
<br />i o's five (65) buildings, as far away as Forest Lake and Lake Elmo, and included fiver construction to the Roseville
<br />i�= Area School District as part of the overall City of Roseville network. Mr. Heiser noted that fiber optic access was
<br />i�, limited by funding, and made wireless communication a much more economic and available option.
<br />• • Page 2 of 3
<br />
|