The Selectboard Meeting this Wednesday, June 27th at 6:30 will include a presentation by the Town Manager on the Emergency Communications Tower proposed for the hill above the Town Garage on New Boston Road.
Based on the Selectboard Packet:
http://reports.norwich.vt.us/WebSBPacket06-27-12.pdf
it appears this presentation will repeat much of the information provided at a public forum for the same purpose held last Wednesday.
I can't be there this Wednesday, but if anyone doubts the administrative qualities of our new TM, this presentation demonstrates his strengths in abundance:
Digesting extremely complex data into clear, informative overviews;
Providing comprehensive, thorough treatment of an issue that doesn’t gloss over difficult issues;
Strong efforts to minimize infrastructure cost through siting and grant coordination;
An open demeanor and patience with divergent viewpoints;
Apparently very good rapport with Fire, Police, and Public Works heads to assess and address their needs.
Indeed, I paraphrase (may not be verbatim because I don’t know shorthand) a statement he made at the most recent Public Forum which illustrates his focus and priorities regarding the proposed tower quite well:
“I have been focused on finding a solution that meets the needs of our three public safety departments. I think if it meets the needs of those three departments it meets the needs of our 3,400 residents.”
While I ultimately disagree with the statement, I respect the viewpoint behind it and honestly believe we are fortunate to have a town manager in place today who brings such dedication, intelligence, and consciousness of role to the position.
I disagree with the statement’s “what’s good for GM is good for America” conclusion because it defines the problem as a purely administrative/public safety issue.
In fact, a 198’ tower impacts home values and views, individual property rights traditionally governed by land use regulation. It also requires expanding the town’s bonding authority to pay for the tower, raising political considerations in addition to purely fiscal concerns. Finally, it is a case study in how administrative bureaucracy inevitably operates on different criteria -- and responsive to a different constituency -- than elected officials, even in very small towns.
This is the first in a series of four posts I’ve written outlining my concerns regarding the current emergency communications tower proposal. My concerns are rooted in issues of policy, regulation, and democratic process that go to the heart of decision-making in small town democracy. (I’m going to hold off on this last point until we see how the tower process works out.)
For those who don’t want to wade through so much verbiage, here is an executive summary -- I only ask that anyone who responds please read the extended version first:
This is not the first standalone communications tower proposed for Norwich.
Verizon built a tower on Upper Loveland Road seven years ago after thorough Development Review Board review. The resulting tower, similar to the tower on the hilltop just southeast of Exit 12 on I-91, is difficult to see even when you’re looking for it.
Facing DRB review, Verizon designed their tower to comply with our zoning regs. They chose a shorter tower located on higher ground that achieves Verizon’s coverage goals with minimal impact on neighbors and passersby.
The contrast between the Verizon tower and the proposed emergency communications tower is significant. The proposed tower shows signs someone overlooked the need for DRB review under the same regulations that governed the Verizon tower.
Consequently, the tower proposal has got ahead of itself, with a proposed design that may be penny-wise, but pound foolish; a proposal that might have met less opposition and produced a better result for all had the applicable DRB review criteria been in mind from the start.
I don’t question the need to address our emergency communications infrastructure. In an emergency, we all want to know fire, police and public works personnel can reach us. Current emergency communications coverage simply fails in certain parts of town today and will get even worse after new FCC rules kick in on December 31st.
The proposed tower should improve upon today’s coverage levels, but due to tower site and height characteristics it will still leave some areas in the shadows without reliable and effective emergency services communications coverage.
If we’re going to expand our bonding authority to build a new tower, shouldn’t we strive for a tower that reaches 100% of our residents, if at all possible?
Verizon’s approach to achieving their coverage objectives -- siting a smaller tower on higher ground -- does not appear to have been followed in this instance in deference to cost concerns and the looming FCC deadline.
However, the proposed tower may require an extended Act 250 and DRB review due to its size that runs afoul of the FCC deadline anyway.
More importantly, whatever savings we achieve by foregoing a 100% coverage objective pales for anyone facing a future emergency in one of our coverage “shadows.”
We need to take the time now to look for alternative sites on higher terrain that can get closer to 100% coverage and fit better in the surrounding landscape. The error in overlooking DRB review criteria at the outset will be nothing compared to the future regrets we may have that we built a big tower that only serves most of us.
Based on the Selectboard Packet:
http://reports.norwich.vt.us/WebSBPacket06-27-12.pdf
it appears this presentation will repeat much of the information provided at a public forum for the same purpose held last Wednesday.
I can't be there this Wednesday, but if anyone doubts the administrative qualities of our new TM, this presentation demonstrates his strengths in abundance:
Digesting extremely complex data into clear, informative overviews;
Providing comprehensive, thorough treatment of an issue that doesn’t gloss over difficult issues;
Strong efforts to minimize infrastructure cost through siting and grant coordination;
An open demeanor and patience with divergent viewpoints;
Apparently very good rapport with Fire, Police, and Public Works heads to assess and address their needs.
Indeed, I paraphrase (may not be verbatim because I don’t know shorthand) a statement he made at the most recent Public Forum which illustrates his focus and priorities regarding the proposed tower quite well:
“I have been focused on finding a solution that meets the needs of our three public safety departments. I think if it meets the needs of those three departments it meets the needs of our 3,400 residents.”
While I ultimately disagree with the statement, I respect the viewpoint behind it and honestly believe we are fortunate to have a town manager in place today who brings such dedication, intelligence, and consciousness of role to the position.
I disagree with the statement’s “what’s good for GM is good for America” conclusion because it defines the problem as a purely administrative/public safety issue.
In fact, a 198’ tower impacts home values and views, individual property rights traditionally governed by land use regulation. It also requires expanding the town’s bonding authority to pay for the tower, raising political considerations in addition to purely fiscal concerns. Finally, it is a case study in how administrative bureaucracy inevitably operates on different criteria -- and responsive to a different constituency -- than elected officials, even in very small towns.
This is the first in a series of four posts I’ve written outlining my concerns regarding the current emergency communications tower proposal. My concerns are rooted in issues of policy, regulation, and democratic process that go to the heart of decision-making in small town democracy. (I’m going to hold off on this last point until we see how the tower process works out.)
For those who don’t want to wade through so much verbiage, here is an executive summary -- I only ask that anyone who responds please read the extended version first:
This is not the first standalone communications tower proposed for Norwich.
Verizon built a tower on Upper Loveland Road seven years ago after thorough Development Review Board review. The resulting tower, similar to the tower on the hilltop just southeast of Exit 12 on I-91, is difficult to see even when you’re looking for it.
Facing DRB review, Verizon designed their tower to comply with our zoning regs. They chose a shorter tower located on higher ground that achieves Verizon’s coverage goals with minimal impact on neighbors and passersby.
The contrast between the Verizon tower and the proposed emergency communications tower is significant. The proposed tower shows signs someone overlooked the need for DRB review under the same regulations that governed the Verizon tower.
Consequently, the tower proposal has got ahead of itself, with a proposed design that may be penny-wise, but pound foolish; a proposal that might have met less opposition and produced a better result for all had the applicable DRB review criteria been in mind from the start.
I don’t question the need to address our emergency communications infrastructure. In an emergency, we all want to know fire, police and public works personnel can reach us. Current emergency communications coverage simply fails in certain parts of town today and will get even worse after new FCC rules kick in on December 31st.
The proposed tower should improve upon today’s coverage levels, but due to tower site and height characteristics it will still leave some areas in the shadows without reliable and effective emergency services communications coverage.
If we’re going to expand our bonding authority to build a new tower, shouldn’t we strive for a tower that reaches 100% of our residents, if at all possible?
Verizon’s approach to achieving their coverage objectives -- siting a smaller tower on higher ground -- does not appear to have been followed in this instance in deference to cost concerns and the looming FCC deadline.
However, the proposed tower may require an extended Act 250 and DRB review due to its size that runs afoul of the FCC deadline anyway.
More importantly, whatever savings we achieve by foregoing a 100% coverage objective pales for anyone facing a future emergency in one of our coverage “shadows.”
We need to take the time now to look for alternative sites on higher terrain that can get closer to 100% coverage and fit better in the surrounding landscape. The error in overlooking DRB review criteria at the outset will be nothing compared to the future regrets we may have that we built a big tower that only serves most of us.
No comments:
Post a Comment