Monday, July 2, 2012

Not This Tower (Letter to Selectboard)

I plan to be at your meeting on the 11th, but want to forward these comments ahead of time.

In the proposed communications tower, we are building infrastructure meant to serve us for decades to come.  As a town, we’ve failed to properly plan for this project despite Neil Fulton’s best efforts.  Now, facing an imminent deadline, he’s knocked himself out to balance coverage with cost and has hammered away continuously to secure outside money in an effort to lower taxpayer cost still further.  Nevertheless, I believe we’ve reached a decision point that simply defies his best efforts to move forward.

First, as Phil Dechert will likely confirm when he’s back from vacation, this tower will require DRB review in addition to Act 250 review.  This really shouldn’t surprise anyone. As some of you may recall, the Dresden Route 5 Fields required DRB review despite being a local government entity and despite building only fields and some spectator seating on the site. 

Second, neither the Act 250 nor the DRB review will be rubber stamp reviews despite the fact this is also a local government project.  Under our zoning regulations, even fast-track review under NZR 4.11 requires the DRB to make affirmative findings approving both site and height characteristics.  For telecommunications facilities, site and height characteristics are governed by NZR 4.13.  Under 4.13 the DRB rejected any Verizon tower more than 20’ above the surrounding tree line.  Independent of our review, the Act 250 District Commission also summarily rejected Verizon’s effort to build a tower more than 20’ above the tree line.  Why this occurred and how the proposed tower might fare under similar review are best left to another letter. 

Third, it should be clear from the correspondence and public comment already generated that both the Act 250 and DRB applications will be contested by neighbors.  Whatever the ultimate outcome, it’s unrealistic to believe contested regulatory reviews can be completed by year-end.

Under the circumstances, it seems unwise to press ahead with a bond vote in August.  The proposed tower may not survive regulatory review as designed.  It seems a reach asking voters to start borrowing money when we don’t know what we will ultimately build. 

It’s time for the Selectboard to show political leadership in this matter and take the Town Manager off the hook.  He’s identified a serious public service issue and done his level best to address it, but now his efforts are running up against a deadline that risks placing expediency above good judgment. 

The Selectboard should schedule a bond vote on the communications tower for the March 2013 town elections.  This would allow more time for the DRB and Act 250 reviews.  It would give us time to research alternative sites that may provide better coverage while respecting the presumptive height restrictions set out in NZR 4.13.  It might afford us the time to find a better solution on all counts that would be money better spent and a better decision overall. 

This would also require the political courage to recognize there are potential costs in missing the January 1 FCC narrow-banding deadline: A period of even worse emergency services communications until the tower design and permitting are resolved;  the potential some grant money now available to us may disappear; potentially a higher price tag overall. 

Missing the January deadline and the risks that poses are not the Town Manager’s fault.  All of us who didn’t get on top of this much earlier share that responsibility.  But the alternative is a protracted regulatory and political fight which compounds our current challenges.  In retrospect, it will all seem to have been easily avoided with just a little political foresight applied while there's still time.  

As stated at the outset, we are building infrastructure here meant to serve us for decades to come.  Let’s do it right. 

No comments: