CC_Minutes_2010_0111 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, January 11, 2010 Page 11 aesthetically behind existing trees on the corner. Mr. Heiser advised that the original location was almost at the corner of the circular pathway at the lower door to City Hall. Mr. Heiser advised that the revised location was based on maximizing and maintaining connectivity of the City's communication functions, as well as their network group, should their be a future absence of facilities through the Comcast network. Mr. Heiser advised that the closer the radios and antenna could be kept in proximity to the base in the basement of City Hall, the less expense for equipment. Mr. Heiser advised that the alternate site (Site 2) ad- jacent to the Public Works yard will also work based on the location of buried conduit along that area that could be extended. However, Mr. Heiser advised that service trucks with a bucket used by service providers (i.e., Clearwire) would have easier access in the parking lot, rather than on the street (Woodhill Avenue) if Site 2 were utilized. Mr. Heiser advised that the aerial photo was dated, and that the Public Works yard was now filled with materials and that the tower would need to be serviced from Woodhill. Further discussion among Councilmembers and staff included comparable costs of fiber optic versus conduit; and aesthetic impacts of Site 1 for Central Park. Councilmember Johnson expressed his preference for Site 2 from an aesthetic perspective, due to its proximity further from Central Park, and the existing tower in the southeast corner of the yard. Mr. Heiser clarified that the existing UHF/VHF tower would be removed as the equipment on that tower had been relocated to City Hall several years ago. Councilmember Pust concurred on the preference for Site 2. Councilmember Ihlan sought clarification on the cost of the tower construction and who would be paying for that initial construction. Mr. Heiser advised that the City would ultimately own the tower, with the con- struction costs applied to Clearwire as the first identified user of the pole; with lease payments abated over a period to the firm, and then turned back to the City at no cost (approximately 4 years), with construction costs estimated at $80,000. Mr. Heiser further advised that historically, existing towers provided a positive cash flow from other providers; and advised that negotiations were continuing be- tween Clearwire and the City for the rent abatement period. Mr. Heiser advised that the tower ownership by the City was prudent based on their ownership of the ground underneath it, and with the City taking ownership it served to provide a future revenue source. Councilmember Roe questioned whether there was anticipated interest of other providers on this tower in the immediate future.