Voting "No" on Article 1

The Energy Committee — Linda Gray and Aaron Lamperti in particular — have done remarkable work raising awareness about conservation and transitioning to low/no-carbon energy sources.  I’m wary of opposing something they’ve worked so hard to guide through, but I will be voting “NO” on Article 1 next Tuesday.

I’m a big fan of geothermal technology.  I support the idea of developing a geothermal district that can serve Tracy Hall and other public — and private — buildings downtown.  I believe a well-conceived and executed geothermal development can be a long-term asset to the town.  But we cannot even begin that discussion until Article 1 is defeated.  

I agree with Steve Flanders and Chris Katucki who both point out the Selectboard has no incentive to consider broader application of geothermal — or even potential cost savings on the current proposal — until Article 1 is defeated.  

The initial success of (what was) Article 8 proves there is broad interest in low carbon solutions.  It proves hundreds of residents are willing to bear higher taxes to achieve that, so voting down Article 1 shouldn’t be viewed as a defeat for geothermal.  It should simply continue the dialogue in town to balance cost and breadth of coverage so more residents are convinced we are achieving this goal the right way.  

Please vote “NO” on Article 1.

Watt Alexander 

Inappropriate Actions (Norwich ListServ)

One raised eyebrow for Linda Cook for putting Chief Robinson in an unfair position by asking him whether he had been pressured by the Town Manager to sign the "Open Letter" advocating for the ABC Dairy site. 

She's effectively asking him to take sides between two bosses, the TM on the one hand and the SB majority who voted not to pursue the ABC Dairy site on the other.  If, in fact, the town department heads have felt pressured to toe the line, asking one of them point blank to acknowledge that in a private conversation effectively asks an employee you feel is being threatened with potential retaliation to do something that would trigger retaliation without any of the protections of a formal SB inquiry. 

There's no question the Selectboard, acting as a whole, has the authority to pursue questions such as were apparently raised by Linda Cook.  At 24 VSA Section 1237, Vermont law makes provision for the Selectboard to "cause the affairs of any town office or the conduct of any officer or employee thereof to be examined.  They may compel the attendance of witnesses, the production of books, papers, and other evidence."  But Linda should have taken up those questions in a Selectboard meeting and only pursued them in the context of a formal Selectboard decision to do so.


A corresponding eyebrow raised for our Town Manager who, after making the point that Cook's questions put a town employee in an unfair position, asserts a grasping view of his own position relative to the SB:  "It also undermines the authority and responsibilities of the Town Manager and clearly exceeds the authority of a member of the Selectboard.  The Town Manager works for the Selectboard; all other non-elected employees work for the Town Manager." 

By statute, "In all matters [a town manager] shall be subject to the direction and supervision and shall hold office at the will of such selectmen, who, by majority vote, may remove him at any time for cause."  24 VSA Sec. 1233

The Town Manager works for the Selectboard to administrate the town's affairs.  Non-elected town employees work for the Town and the supervision and conditions of their work are administrated by the Town Manager.  It may see like a trivial distinction, but the Town Manager position exists solely to assist the legislative representatives of the town in administrating the town's affairs.  If the Selectboard is worried about intimidation of town employees by a town manager, Vermont law clearly gives the Selectboard, acting as a body, the authority to investigate and act upon their findings with or without the assistance of that town manager.  They are not the Town Manager's employees, they are the Town's employees and so is the Town Manager, all ultimately accountable to the Selectboard acting as a body.


Another raised eyebrow for our Town Manager in managing the entire woodlot question as he did. 

It would surprise me greatly if the TM didn't know of the established practice of distributing firewood to needy households by the Town Service Officer.  In fact, I would bet one reason the Norwich Wood Fuel Assistance Program policy was drafted was to bring authority over firewood distribution under the Town Manager in an explicit break with tradition.  If so -- and knowing the wood was removed by someone with keys to the woodlot -- why on earth call the cops instead of just asking the folks who have distributed the wood in past years? Thoughtful adults without an axe to grind might simply call the Town Service Officer, confirm the facts, and remind her of the new policy.  If that didn't suffice, raising the issue in the next SB meeting as a matter of reminding everyone how the town's policy has changed should have done the trick. 

Instead, the entire matter was played to maximum effect. 

First a police investigation of a possible theft.  With the humble results of that investigation in hand -- and having stirred the pot by prompting public inquiries on the listserv -- the Town Manager nevertheless neglected to inform listserv readers that there had been no theft after all, despite at least two specific requests for more information posted by townspeople well after Chief Robinson's conclusions had been reported to the Town Manager. 

Why? 

Allowing the matter to fester publicly has likely discredited the firewood assistance program itself by creating an appearance that the wood collected was squandered.  Worse, in my mind, it put all this year's firewood recipients in an awful position, knowing they had received firewood assistance but having that distribution treated publicly like a theft. 

At best, this smacks of ham-handed bureaucratic insensitivity.  At worst, it suggests a deliberate effort by a town employee to publicly discredit an elected town official.


I think we're all sorry this can of worms ever opened. 

Woodlot In A Teapot (Norwich ListServ)

Here's a mouthful: 

"I note that there is an item on the agenda for the September 10, 2014 Selectboard meeting for an Executive Session related to the discipline or dismissal of the Town Manager. This item has been requested by a member of the Selectboard that told the Police Chief something to the effect that I (Neil) would be sorry I ever opened that can of worms, for sending a memorandum to her as Town Service Officer regarding the unauthorized removal of wood from a locked area, the Town's Woodlot."

For those who haven't read it, this is the first paragraph of the Town Manager's Selectboard Packet for this Wednesday's SB Meeting. 

Here are the facts as set out in various memos authored by the Town Manager in the past eight weeks:

In early July, several cords of firewood -- put up for the Norwich Wood Fuel Assistance Program -- were removed and distributed to apparently qualified recipients at the direction of Town Service Officer (and Selectboard member) Linda Cook.  This practice is consistent with distributions made to qualified recipients each of the past 4 or 5 years.  Nevertheless, the Town Manager asked Chief Robinson "to investigate to determine if there had been a theft."  That investigation confirmed the facts stated above. 

On July 27th, the Town Manager sent "Linda Cook, Service Officer" a memorandum challenging her authority to distribute firewood in this manner "without the appropriate authorization as defined in the Norwich Wood Fuel Assistance Program procedures."   He concludes, "I recognize that the wood may have gone to individuals that need the wood, but request that you do not take any actions that involve the use of Town employees or resources, including wood from the woodlot, without specific written authorization from me."

Stirring stuff.

Here's where the facts get a little harder to follow. 

The TM says the Police Chief says he was asked by Linda Cook whether he had been pressured by the TM to sign on to the "Open Letter" the TM issued arguing for the ABC Dairy site back in late July after a majority of the SB had already voted against pursuing the ABC Dairy site as a new location for our fire and police stations.   The TM says the Police Chief was told by Linda Cook "that I (Neil) would be sorry I ever opened that can of worms," which the TM took to mean the woodlot matter. 

A flurry of TM memoranda have resulted expounding on many aspects of the statutory authority for Town Service Officers, Town Managers, and Fair Labor standards, the longest one entitled simply,  "Inappropriate Actions." 

In response, Linda Cook wrote an email to her fellow Selectboard members stating, in part, "I understand the Town Manager request that I notify one of the contacts identified in the Norwich wood fuel assistance program policy.  I will make sure I do so in the future."

So what does it all mean? 

Well, apparently the town wanted a better policy for managing the wood fuel assistance program.  Apparently, that policy altered recent wood distribution practice and the Town Service Officer needed reminding that the policy had been changed.  Apparently, that's settled. 

On a deeper level, of course, the administration of the woodlot and wood fuel assistance program is just a pretext for a simmering dispute between the TM and at least one member of the SB.  From where I sit, both deserve raised eyebrows for how they conducted themselves in this matter.   I'll take up that scolding in another post. 

Tempest in a Tracy Hall (Norwich ListServ)

As an only occasional listserv reader, I've been a little late to pick up on the various controversies animating this Wednesday's Selectboard Meeting.  After doing some homework, I will post on a few of the issues at play, but want to start here by stating my own position. 

Like Ed Childs, I also believe our current Town Manager is "the best Town Manager that Norwich has had."  As I've said before, I think he's demonstrated real bureaucratic genius and shown he's very adept at working with state and federal resources for the benefit of the town where he puts his mind to it.  There's no question the documentation and reporting coming from the various departments and his office are far superior to what we've had in the past.  As a tool and resource for better Selectboard decision-making, this town manager is really in a different class from what we've seen in this position in the past.  That's not to slag previous town managers, but this one really lives and breathes this stuff.

Unfortunately, events this summer raise real questions about whether our current TM has the political compass and sense of his role to survive in this post for long.  For all his administrative capabilities, we're seeing a worrying pattern of really questionable turf struggles with the Selectboard that will eventually make this TM's position untenable.  I'll briefly summarize a few of the most recent ones in separate posts, but want to express my own hope that our Selectboard members take more seriously the need to honestly and openly address the respective roles of TM and SB before misunderstandings and turf battles ruin the relationship.  (If you want the long version of this concern, written back in April 2012, go here.

Equally unfortunate, I'm afraid, is our human tendency to gloss over the failings of our allies and overstate those of our opponents.  It is not unreasonable for a TM and SB majority to disagree on all sorts of things.  The real feat is to balance the political and representational responsibilities of SB members with the administrative responsibilities of a TM and to restore that balance -- for the good of the Town -- when it slips. 

Here, I disagree with Ed Childs' view that a capable TM "deserves full support and respect from our elected representatives and the community."  Respect is a courtesy which runs both ways.  Abiding respect is earned.  If the dialogue between SB and TM is getting frayed once more, it's a mistake to imagine it's all one side's fault.       "Full support" is a fairy tale.  At worst, it's elected officials giving an appointed town employee carte blanche.  At best, it's willful denial this same appointed town employee won't do anything that riles up the electorate.

So, here's hoping our elected representatives on the Selectboard and their appointed administrative head can honestly and constructively work their way through these latest points of friction.  In that effort, I can agree, both parties deserve our full support. 

The Sky Is Not Falling (Norwich ListServ)

It takes a lot longer to write these things than it does to read them, so believe me when I say I really hope this is the last time I post on this tower. 

Based on the January 29th memo by our town manager, the decision on Article 34 boils down to some fairly straightforward math.  All my figures below come from the table at the bottom of page 2 of that memo, so you may want to print out that page. 

"Yes" on Article 34 authorizes the Selectboard to raise $275,000 through bonds to build and own this tower. 

This amount is more than adequate to cover the tower development and construction costs -- an estimated $215,000 according to the town website memo. ($332,813 minus $117,813 = $215,000) 

The town also faces equipment and refitting costs for our fire, police and public works departments which we must pay for whether we build this tower or VTel builds it.  According to the same outline from the town website, these costs are estimated at about $196,000 total ($470,600 - $275,000). 

A year ago, the town received an AFG grant for around $50,000 to cover fire communications equipment. ($470,600 - $420,048)  The performance period for this grant was February 23, 2013, but our TM has secured a six-month extension to August 23rd and suggests a second six-month extension may be possible.

Last December we received an HSGP grant for about $87,000 to cover police communications equipment. ($420,048 - $332,813)  The "performance period" for this grant ends on June 30, 2013.  According to our TM, this deadline is set in stone and we simply lose the money if we haven't "performed" by that date.

If the town passes Article 34 and can retain both grants, the town still needs to come up with about $58,000 ($332,813 - $275,000) to cover equipment and refitting.

Now our TM insists we will lose the HSGP grant if Article 34 passes because we will fail to "perform" by June 30th.  Our TM thinks we can extend the AFG grant into 2014 so the risk of losing that grant is much lower. 

So, if Article 34 passes, and, as our TM insists, we'll lose the HSGP grant, we need to come up with an additional $145,048. ($420,048 - $275,000)

How?

Just last week, our TM asked the Selectboard to approve a lease-purchase agreement with Lake Sunapee Bank for $120,000 to cover these same costs.  Would Lake Sunapee Bank accept a $145,048 lease-purchase sum?   If so, between the bond and a tweak to the TM's proposed lease-purchase with Lake Sunapee Bank, we've covered the entire project. 

No second bond or Special Town Meeting necessary.

-    -    -

On the other hand, "No" on Article 34 means the town has no money available to build this tower, so we must rely on VTel to do it for us. 

If we retain the grants already awarded for fire and police equipment then the town must come up with $117,813 to cover these remaining equipment and refitting costs.  As designed, the proposed Lake Sunapee Bank lease-purchase would cover this amount. 

But what if VTel fails to "perform" by June 30th and we lose the HSGP grant anyway?  The town must then come up with about $206,000 ($117,813 + $87,000). 

Will Lake Sunapee Bank go for that?  In that case, we really might need a second bond or Special Town Meeting.

So it may all come down to whether VTel can "perform" by June 30th. 

Can they?

If VTel had filed their required 248A 45-day pre-application notice with the Public Service Board on March 1, they would be able to file the application itself on April 15th.  (30 VSA 248a (e))

Our Town Manager has estimated it will take five months from the date of application to get a 248A "Certificate of Public Good."  Even if this includes the 45-day pre-application notice, we're into August, well beyond the HSGP June 30th deadline.

Add to this Steve Flanders' 3/2/13 post stating, "[t]he board and town manager received valuable input on the specifics of the contract. As a result, the town manager is exploring some substantive changes to the proposed contract."

Will VTel would push forward with their 248A application while the contract is being renegotiated? 

So either way it looks like we won't be able to "perform" under the HSGP grant and will lose that $87,000 grant either way. 

What's a town to do?

Well, to paraphrase Bill Clinton, "that depends on how you define "performance.""

I have not seen the grant documents or any legal definition of the "performance deadline" so I can't say myself, but I have a hunch there's more flexibility there than our Town Manager is sharing.  Otherwise, I think he would concede that the HSGP grant is probably lost even if VTel builds this tower. 

Maybe we can buy all the equipment subject to this grant and only install the Hayes Hill portion before June 30th? 

Maybe we can buy it all and warehouse it? 

I just don't know. 

So, assuming the figures presented on the town website are accurate, and the HSGP grant deadline is set in stone, the town may need to come up with more than $200,000 to cover equipment if we sign the VTel agreement and only $150,000 more if we pass Article 34. 

Of course, passing Article 34 means more money from our pockets overall, but it should make clear that the differences between the two plans is nowhere near as dramatic or dire as some Article 34 opponents have suggested. 

If the town website numbers are to be believed, it all really boils down to whether we spend $215,000 to build this tower or have VTel build and own it. 

I think $215,000 is a reasonable and wise investment in core emergency services infrastructure for this town. 

I think $215,000 is a reasonable price to pay to make sure this infrastructure remains in our control and not in the hands of a for-profit company with very different priorities and interests than ours.  

I'm voting "YES" on Article 34 and hope you will too.

Lacking a Shared Sense of Urgency (Norwich ListServ)

This past week, proponents of the VTel deal have insisted that a decision by voters to build and own this tower ourselves may delay our emergency communications upgrade by a year or more. 

These claims simply ignore reality.

First of all, this talk of 24-30 months flatly contradicts our Town Manager's own timetable for building this tower ourselves, set out in his September 7, 2012 "Additional Communications Studies" memo to the Selectboard.   

On the second page of that memo, he clearly states that the permitting process would likely take five months and construction of the tower -- from "request for bids" to "project complete" -- would require another five months.  It's conceivable the bidding process (two months in his memo) could overlap the latter part of the permitting process, compressing a ten-month project into as little as eight, if that September 7th memo is to be believed.

Second, the assumption that VTel is on some fast track to build this tower doesn't hold up.  VTel is already more than five months behind the schedule our Town Manager announced last August.  The agreement he negotiated with VTel allows them two years from the date that agreement is signed to actually build this tower.  In fact, the agreement doesn't require VTel to build the tower at all.  After those two years, VTel can simply walk away without having built anything and without any repercussions.  On the other hand, once our TM signs this agreement, Norwich cannot terminate it, meaning we have no option but to wait patiently for VTel to make this tower -- among the many they are pursuing right now -- their top priority. 

VTel is a private commercial company looking to build out an ambitious multi-site wireless broadband network far beyond anything they have accomplished so far.  The assumption they somehow share our sense of urgency about this current emergency radio "gray out" -- with everything else they've got on their plate -- is simply naive.  I'm not suggesting they are bad people or even indifferent.  They're busy, they may be over their heads statewide, and they are in the business of making money, not of protecting the people of Norwich. 

Third, the VTel agreement allows them to unilaterally terminate the agreement if, after "commercially reasonable efforts" they feel this tower project isn't worth it to them.  That's a pretty subjective standard, so the agreement helpfully states that spending $40,000 "shall definitely constitute commercially reasonable efforts," meaning a lesser amount might too.  Why would VTel walk away from this tower project?  Ask the Windham County Sheriff.   Last week, VTel decided they preferred a hilltop site in Newfane to the tower they had agreed to build where the Sheriff planned to locate his narrowband antennas: 

"(VTel President Michel) Guité acknowledged that the change in plans represents "a little bit of a headache, because we went through the trouble of signing a contract with the sheriff.""

So I'd say it's time those supporting the VTel agreement stop trying to scare us with outlandish talk of year-long delays.  There's simply no factual basis to support their claim that VTel can or will build this tower faster than we can ourselves.  The facts actually suggest the opposite.

This is vital infrastructure and the need is urgent.  Why entrust it to a for profit who just last week left the Windham County Sheriff in the lurch on the eve of permitting?  Were his narrowbanding needs any less urgent than ours?

VTel is in the broadcast and tower rental business.  We are interested in public safety -- our safety.  Maybe this tower is too important to us to rely on VTel to get done?

Managing the Managers (VNews Submission)

"Practice makes perfect," someone's said, but they can't have meant democracy. 

The democratic debate over competing interests -- from New England Town Meeting to state capitols to Washington -- remains as fractious and messy as ever.  Messier, maybe, as that democratic debate is increasingly filtered through a vast and growing bureaucratic layer of government administrative roles and regulation. 

Indeed, throughout the Upper Valley, New England's experiment with direct democracy is giving way to a more modern, suburban, bureaucracy.  Town meeting gives way to the Australian ballot. Volunteer selectboards cede ever more authority to professional administrators, signaling that American government, even in small communities, may no longer be a matter for amateurs. 

Here in Norwich, our experiment with professional administration began in 2002 when we hired our first town manager.  Barely ten years later, convulsed by a series of public controversies, we're on to our fourth town manager with new controversies brewing.  While the details of these spats are fascinating to the participants -- and make good Valley News headlines -- the underlying struggle they signify is relevant to all your readers: 

Where do we, the amateur citizen-taxpayers, fit within this increasingly bureaucratized democracy?

Last September ("Due Diligence" 9/23/12), the Valley News took the position that voters unhappy with our Selectboard's decision to pursue a contract with VTel must content ourselves with the opportunity to elect different selectboard members when these face re-election in 2014.  We've taken a more robust approach; twice gathering sufficient signatures to place the VTel contract before town voters.  Twice we've been rebuffed by a narrow three-member majority of our selectboard.

Knowing we would secure the necessary signatures to force a bond vote over their opposition, we offered the Selectboard an opportunity to warn the bond vote themselves -- on their terms and for an amount they felt adequate to build a municipally-owned tower in place of the VTel contract.  They could not muster a majority to offer an alternative so we gathered nearly twice the signatures necessary essentially over a weekend. 

A little dose of direct democracy?  Not so fast. 

The bond vote now just a week away, our town manager, seeking to short-circuit the vote, is now pressing our selectboard to enter into a binding contract with VTel at their meeting this Wednesday. Resorting to a now familiar pattern, we are told doomsday scenarios, that VTel is the only option, suggesting this decision is simply too important to be left to the voters. 

While I don't question the sincerity of our town manager's ultimate goal, the methods he's employed exemplify the risks we face in this brave new world of bureaucratized democracy.  It also suggests your paper's confidence in the curative qualities of a ballot box may no longer apply.

Where do amateur citizen-taxpayers fit in if a town manager dictates the selectboard agenda and controls the flow of information to define the grounds for debate?  How can amateur citizen-taxpayers match the time and resources our own tax dollars provide our town manager to manage that debate?  We can't simply "vote the bums out," because we don't get to vote for town manager.

Instead, in today's bureaucratized democracy, we must hope our selectboards learn how to manage the managers.  We have to find ways to hold bureaucrats accountable without making them political appointees (or scapegoats).  And we need to recognize the same complexity that makes direct volunteer management of town affairs unrealistic also makes volunteer oversight of professional management very, very difficult.  Wish us luck.

(This piece was subsequently edited by the Valley News prior to publishing on 2-26-13)

Playing with the Big Boys

Open Letter to the Norwich Selectboard
Monday, February 25, 2013

Today, just two days before a vote will be taken, the Town Manager released the proposed definitive agreement with VTel and, as some had feared, it is is not a pretty sight.  In my opinion, it appears we've simply accepted VTel's opening offer, resulting in such a lopsided deal that the Selectboard and taxpayers should reject it out of hand.  I explain my reasons for this at length below.  My apologies for any rough edges, this is a lot to get done on such short notice.  I have posted an annotated version on my blog where you can click through to source documents, so you can confirm for yourselves if you have questions about sources for my information:

Now bear with me here, it's not rocket science, but it does require some explanation.

First, let's all remember this VTel contract is a business deal.  VTel isn't offering to build this tower our of altruism or community spirit.  This tower will generate several million of dollars in revenue for VTel over proposed 60-year term of this lease, so the initial cost of tower construction and permitting are a no-brainer for them.  VTel is in this for the profit -- I have no quibble with that -- but please be realistic about whom we are dealing with here.

Seeking profit, VTel wants to minimize their costs and maximize their revenue, plain and simple.  Any rent or revenue share VTel is required to pay Norwich to lease our land under this contract is a cost.  Naturally, they are going to offer as little as possible up front in terms of rent and revenue sharing to see what we'll accept.  That offer is nothing more than an opening gambit to get the best possible deal for VTel.  Unless we are willing to approach this as a business deal -- looking to maximize our rent income and revenue share -- we are giving up something of value (municipal property) for much less than it's worth to VTel.

So let's say VTel came to me, a private landowner, asking if I would be interested in leasing the top of my hill for a cell/LTE tower.  Ok, let's talk, and I start to do my research:

Typically, a tower site lease has three types of revenue provisions:


Ground Lease -- A monthly or annual rent of the ground on which the tower and supporting equipment are sited.

You can google cell tower leases and will find a wide variety of lease amounts -- ranging from less than $1,000/mo for unsophisticated, generally rural, landowners to more than $4,000/mo for urban locations more highly desirable to tower developers.  From the DRB hearings on the Verizon tower we permitted back in 2006, it's my recollection that landowner was to receive an initial ground lease rate of $17,000 annually.

Now, my hilltop -- and the town's DPW site VTel wants -- is a far more attractive site than Verizon's tower on Upper Loveland Road, especially with a 199' tower on it.  Ours can reach downtown in a very affluent community and ours is more than twice as tall as the Verizon tower.  But for comparison's sake, let's keep our expected ground lease figure conservative, at just a bit over what Verizon was paying six or seven years ago.

So, if I'm negotiating with VTel on a tower lease, I'm asking for at least $1,500 in monthly ground lease rent = $18,000/year. 


Co-locator/Sublease Revenue Share -- Tower operators sublease space on their towers to other broadcasters, allowing them to "co-locate" their transmitters on the same tower.  Operators charge these co-locators rent and view this rent as a major -- sometimes primary -- source of revenue.  Landlords who lease their land to tower operators generally require those operators to share that sublease/co-locator revenue since without their land there's no tower space to lease.  These co-location or sub-lease rental rates cover a similar range to ground lease rates.

At present, AT&T and T-Mobile transmitters are co-located on the Verizon tower on Upper Loveland Road, paying monthly rent for that privilege.   A tower such as this with three different companies co-located and paying rent can produce a very sizable income.  I don't have access to the specifics of how much they pay in rent on this tower; how much they share with the landowner; or how to find out, so more general data will have to serve.

One tower lease consultant's website includes a 2010 survey summary showing the highest and lowest annual lease income from towers in a number of states.  For Vermont, they report a low-end annual lease revenue of $92,000/year and a high-end of $412,000/year, presumably up in Chittenden County.   Just to be clear, those figures include both ground lease and co-locator rents.  We aren't Chittenden County, but we ain't chopped liver either.

So, I want a share of the co-location revenue VTel receive on the tower they want to build on my property, but how much of a share should I ask for?

If you google "cell tower co-location revenue share" you'll find, among other things, a Bay Area consultant's 2011 report for Juneau, Alaska - the "Kreines Report".   This is an excellent resource as it views the entire lease from the eyes of the municipality.  I'd strongly recommend it to anyone who wants to understand what the Selectboard is actually voting on this Wednesday.

On Page 4 of the Kreines Report, they advise that "50% revenue share is the market standard."  They then proceed to give examples of 50/50 co-location revenue shares from Wyoming, Florida and Tennessee.  They conclude by stating: "A rationale for use of the word "sharing" is that most people think it means 50/50. Any tweaking of the present meaning of share is a distortion of the term "sharing."

In addition to the Kreines Report examples, I've found numerous examples of other municipalities and school districts with towers providing a wide variety of co-location revenue shares ranging from 10% to 70%, but the majority I've found are around 50%.

So, if if I'm negotiating with VTel on a tower lease, I'm asking for a 50% share of the co-location revenue they receive on the tower they want to build on my property.


Rent Escalator Clauses -- There is a cost to tying up a property with a lease over a period of time since you can't do anything else with that property in the meantime, often referred to as the "opportunity cost" of a transaction.  There is also a time value of money, meaning a certain amount of money today -- like a $1,500 monthly lease payment -- has different buying power over time due to inflation and other market variables.  Where a long-term lease is involved, it's customary for the lease to include a "rent escalator" that increases the rent amount over time to compensate the lessor for the opportunity cost and time value of money involved in a multi-year contract of this kind.

Tower operators routinely require rent escalators when they allow co-locators on their towers.  Tower operators often grant landowners similar rent escalators if the landowner knows to ask for it. (Google away)

The Kreines Report states, "it is true, there are some leases that never mention escalation because the lessee never brought it up and the lessor wasn't aware of the issue." The report then summarizes an April 2011 survey of several dozen tower leases rent escalator clauses to conclude: "statistically speaking, there can be little doubt that 3% is the mode (or most common) escalation rate."

So, if if I'm negotiating with VTel on a tower lease, I'm asking for a 3% annual escalation rate on the ground lease and, with my 50% co-location revenue share, I already participate in the escalation rate they receive for co-locators on the tower they want to build on my property.


Lease Term -- Finally, I need to decide on how long I'm willing to lease my hilltop to VTel.

Asked by the Juneau city government to offer guidance on their tower operator's request for a 35-year lease term, the Kreines Report states the situation succinctly:  "Technology being what it is - fast moving - a 35-year term is a commitment to the unknown.  Twenty-year and 25-year terms compete for the most commonly used term in cell site leasing."  And if you google the dozens of cell tower lease summaries out there, you'll see the vast, vast majority are really five year leases with the right to renew four or five times up to a total of 20 to 25 years.  In fact, google "60-year cell tower lease" and see what you get.  60 months -- plenty, but 60 years? 

So, if I'm negotiating with VTel on a tower lease, I'm not willing to entertain anything longer than a total 25-year lease on the tower they want to build on my property.

And remember, my goals for this hypothetical VTel lease are not extreme or even aggressive, they are industry standard.

-    -    -    -    -

Now, if you examine the proposed VTel Agreement our Town Manager negotiated and wants approved on Wednesday, you realize just how out of our depth we are in dealing with VTel on this.

- We aren't charging any ground rent.
- The co-locator revenue share formula our TM has negotiated is three cents on the sublease rent dollar.
- We have no escalator clause of any kind for either the ground rent or the revenue share formula for the entire duration of the lease.

AND the lease term is 60 years, renewable solely at VTel's discretion.

This is simply a very, very lopsided deal that, if approved, we will regret for decades to come.

-    -    -    -    -

"But, hold on there," you say.  "This is not a matter of a private landowner leasing a hilltop to VTel for a tower.  This is a town trying to get our emergency communications transmitters up high enough to provide good coverage throughout town.  Don't look a gift horse in the mouth! If VTel's willing to build the tower and let us put our transmitters on top, we shouldn't quibble over rent, co-locator share, or escalators."

Fair enough.  Let's revise our bargaining position with this municipal purpose in mind.

Let's assume our TM decided that it's a fair deal to give VTel the site rent-free in exchange for hanging our antennae on the tower rent free.  But how did he -- and how do we -- figure out whether that's really a fair deal?

Industry standards and the Norwich Verizon tower lease suggest $1,500/mo as a ground lease is within reason.
That's $18,000 a year, assuming no rent escalator at all.
Over a typical five-year lease term, that's $90,000 in rent, again assuming no rent escalator at all. 
Over a typical five 5-year lease extensions -- totaling 25 years -- that's $450,000 in rent we're giving up, again assuming no rent escalator at all.
Over VTel's proposed 60-year lease that's foregone rent in excess of $1 million.  Assuming no rent escalator at all. 

Are we willing to pay over $1 million over the next sixty years for these antennas?  That's exactly what we're doing by giving VTel this lease rent-free.

Add to this the astonishing 3/97 split with VTel on any co-locators.

Let's say a cell company wants to co-locate on VTel's tower and will pay $1,000/mo, this time with rent escalators because VTel is a business and they don't overlook things like rent escalators.  And once you see the compounding effect of rent escalators, you'll understand why:

A co-locator paying $12,000 annual rent in year one would have paid a total of $65,261 over five years; $450,277 over 25 years; and a whopping $2,014,980 over 60 years.

With VTel's proposed revenue share of 3%; our share of this annual rent is $1,957 dollars and 83 cents over five years; $13,508 over 25 years; and an underwhelming $60,449 over the full 60 years.

And that's assuming only one co-locator.  Verizon already has two co-located competitors on their tower only a few years after building it.  And we all know Verizon's tower doesn't reach downtown Norwich very well.   So who knows how many co-locators VTel might have, particularly over 60 years, but even two over half that period would generate hundreds of thousands of dollars each for Norwich and VTel with a more equitable revenue share.

Are we willing to pay several million dollars in foregone rent and potential foregone co-locator revenue share over the next sixty years for these antennas?  That's exactly what we're doing by giving VTel this lease rent-free, no rent escalator, and asking only 3% in co-locator revenue share.

"But, wait," you say, "our Town Manager looked into this and says there aren't any other companies interested in this tower at this time."

Well, VTel is in this business.  VTel makes their money 1) by charging customers for the 4G LTE subscriptions they broadcast from VTel transmitters, and 2) by charging other cell/data broadcasters "co-location" rent to add their transmitters on the same tower.  Their contract with us clearly stipulates their rights to sub-lease to co-locators (VTel Agreement Section 4(b)) and clearly forbids us from doing the same (Section 4(e)).  They clearly felt it was important to limit our revenue share to 3% on those future co-locators.  And the industry standard shows tower developers all over the country are willing to build towers, pay base rent and 50/50 revenue shares to landowners, and they still see an attractive profit margin in the end.  I'm not begrudging them their profit, I'm just questioning why we are willing to be such patsies.

So are these antennas worth potentially several million dollars in foregone rent/rev share income over these next 60 years?

The point is, nothing like this level of analysis was ever done to justify granting VTel this ground lease rent-free.

Nor have any of us been provided any substantiation for the 3% co-location rev share rates VTel is being given.  When I challenged that figure last August at a selectboard meeting, our Town Manager simply stated he had the impression this figure was not negotiable in VTel's eyes.

Of course our Town Manager is also recommending a 60-year lease.  Unilaterally renewable by VTel.  So whatever failure to perform basic due diligence on these lease terms today, this town lives with for another sixty years.

Unless there were documents circulated which were not shared in public, no effort was ever made to compare this proposed contract with industry standards.  No effort was made to quantify the potential revenue we are giving up in return for having the top of a tower they own and operate.  No effort was made to review what VTel's initial offer had been or what our TM's goals were in whatever counter offer -- if any -- he proposed.

Whatever you want to say about Michel Guite and VTel, give the guy credit as a shrewd business man.

He's mastered the broadband spigot in Montpelier and he's run circles around us.

As his coup de grace, the original Letter of Intent stated as an objective, "The parties are entering into this agreement in hopes of establishing a model whereby wireless companies and public safety entities can work together towards a common goal of improved communications."

In other words, this agreement is meant to serve as a model lease VTel can take to other towns throughout the state as VTel rolls out their LTE broadband service.  Vermont towns lacking the resources we have at our disposal will expect we got our money's worth when we negotiated our agreement with VTel.  And they will be sadly, sadly mistaken.

The proposed VTel Agreement is simply a bad deal for Norwich, compounded by a ludicrous 60-year term.  It is simply irresponsible to move forward on this Agreement given the complete lack of public due diligence on what is the largest infrastructure project this town has undertaken in decades.

This is not the way to negotiate a business deal.
This is not the way to run a town.
This is not the way to build a tower.

We're now in our fourth month of an emergency communications gray-out; with a rotten 60-year tower deal on the table and the only realistic alternative -- a bond vote to fund the tower ourselves -- publicly opposed by our Town Manager.  It's time to discuss alternatives with an open mind because, however you look at it, we've been painted into a corner and the door is on the other side of the room.

Judgment Calls and Public Safety

I would simply point out a telling factual misrepresentation in Steve Flanders' post from yesterday:

"Despite the best efforts of the town manager and selectboard, we are now in a communications “gray-out”, compared to last year. This means that first responders are unable to receive pager notifications and voice communications in areas where they previously could when a medical emergency or fire occurred. This is true not just in outlying areas, but also downtown."

I guess this comes down to how you define "best efforts." 

This "gray-out" was the foreseeable and avoidable outcome of our Town Manager's decision to forego an FCC extension and narrowband our emergency communications equipment without a tower in place.

Back on September 5th, Donald Kreis presented the Selectboard with a roadmap to securing an FCC extension that would have allowed the town to continue using our existing "wideband" emergency communications equipment until the new broadband system was up and running. 

A day later, the Selectboard received a letter, signed by 124 residents, also asking the Selectboard to file for an FCC extension to December 31, 2013 or later "if warranted by your judgment." 

At their September 12th Selectboard meeting, the Town Manager rejected the idea of an FCC extension, stating that we don't own the towers where our transmitters are placed.   He stated that getting an FCC extension for our transmitters would put those towers (in Hanover and Hartford) in violation of the federal narrowbanding mandate.  (See September 12th SB Meeting video).  He further stated his intention to have all our emergency services switched over to narrowband equipment by November 15th.  (See September 12th SB Meeting Minutes) 

This prompted my listserv post/letter to the Selectboard questioning their unwavering reliance upon our Town Manager's factual representations.

As I explained in that letter:

At the September 12th Selectboard meeting to consider seeking an FCC extension to allow time for a more thorough review of our options, this Town Manager stated categorically that an FCC extension is pointless because our transmitters are located on towers in Hanover and Hartford.  An FCC extension for us, he claimed, would therefore place both Hanover and Hartford in violation of their FCC narrow-banding requirement. 

And yet First Student, the national school bus company, received an FCC extension last Spring that includes frequencies transmitting from more than 100 different call signs owned by municipalities or private telecommunications companies who aren't deemed to be in violation.  See FCC extension, esp. footnote 3: http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0731/DA-12-1227A1.pdf

A call to FCC counsel confirms that the FCC licenses -- and extends licenses for -- transmission frequencies by call signs, regardless of the location or ownership of those call signs.  The 2010 draft feasibility study itself outlines options for implementing Norwich-only frequencies to improve existing wide-band and future narrow-band reception on existing towers.  And yet public debate of the extension option is reduced to a single categorical statement it can't be done.

Looking back, it seems clear our Town Manager expected a VTel tower to be in place fairly soon so the risk of having a few months of an emergency communications "gray-out" as we have today was an acceptable risk.  As he stated in the Selectboard Minutes from that same September 12th meeting, "the permit package is being prepared by VTel and should be submitted to the Public Service Board in September."

Perhaps he was also concerned an FCC extension would remove the December 31, 2012 deadline that he and some Selectboard members had used to justify the lack of time to consider tower alternatives?

Unfortunately, though perhaps foreseeably, it's February 24th and VTel has yet to submit a pre-application notice to even begin the Public Service Board permit review. 

The decision to narrowband by November 15th was a judgment call.  A judgment call with clear implications for both our emergency services personnel and those they serve.  It was a judgment call which grows more questionable by the day.

Based on my attendance at Selectboard meetings and regular review of  their minutes and information packet, never once was there any public discussion of the risks involved in proceeding with narrowbanding in the event the VTel tower was delayed or VTel drops out.  Never once was the possibility of securing an FCC extension to maintain public safety in the interim seriously considered. 

"Best efforts?"

I'm willing to concede you meant well.  But good judgment -- and certainly best efforts -- are not simply a matter of making decisions.  They are a matter of making decisions based on weighing a variety of information sources, including those you may wish to ignore. 

CC

-    -    -    -    -

From: Stephen Flanders
Subject: [Norwich] Why I will vote on March 5th to approve the Norwich Radio Communications System Bond
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 07:36:30 -0500
Title: Why I will vote on March 5th to approve the Norwich Radio Communications System Bond

In Defense of "F***n Tower" (Norwich ListServ/Letter to Selectboard)

I've received several thoughtful comments from individuals I respect who felt I've gone too far in singling out our Town Manager by name and naming the proposed tower after him.  Respecting their opinions -- and to some degree sharing their discomfort -- I want to try to explain my thinking in crossing this line.

I've spent nearly a year now explaining my reasons for opposing this tower so I won't revisit those arguments here, but please visit my blog -- beginning at http://norwichnavel.blogspot.com/2011/12/uh-oh-norwich-listserv.html -- if you still think this is all about abutters and NIMBYism.  In those two dozen posts, I've tried my best to give credit where credit is due, but also sought accountability for decisions and factual representations that don't hold up.  

Nor do I take lightly the purpose of this tower.  I've listened to our emergency service department heads describe the risks involved where broadcast communications break down.  Five years ago, my brother-in-law suffered a brain aneurysm swimming beside me at the Norwich Pool.  My wife had to drive up Brigham Hill to get adequate signal to call an ambulance.  I know the desperation and fear of not being able to reach help and the immense relief as those flashing lights finally appear.  

So I support an emergency services communications tower in town.  I would even support this particular tower proposal if I thought it reflected an honest effort to respect town institutions; institutions created to ensure that development and major infrastructure reflect the broader goals of our town rather than the narrow concerns of any single individual.  When, as here, that individual is an unelected administrator serving at the pleasure of our Selectboard; authorized to contractually bind the town and controlling the flow of information necessary to assess his decision-making; the question is not a matter of personality but of accountability. 

As I'll set out at length below, we are not dealing with a generic Town Manager here.  In asserting his personal expertise as authoritative on numerous occasions, this Town Manager has made that expertise a matter of contention and a central question of whether he deserves the deference shown by this Selectboard in this and future matters.  If he is going to insist on his predetermined outcome -- damn the torpedoes -- then he should be more than willing to take ownership of the result.  Most importantly, if this town is going to make the most of this Town Manager, we need to be honest about his strengths and weaknesses. 

I've now stewed over this long enough to think I have the narrative down pretty well:

Go to http://norwich.vt.us/bid-documents-for-communications-systems-upgrades/ and click on the link there.  You'll receive a 36-page RFP that I view as a real credit to our current Town Manager.  This document is the stuff of administrative government; this is how bureaucracies speak to one another and how grants are won.  Spend any time reviewing our Town Manager's work on administrative documents such as these and you quickly realize we have a highly capable and proficient administrative professional in this office.  As I've stated elsewhere, his success securing grants for this tower has already repaid his 2012 salary several times over.  He knows the game, he knows the lingo, and he gets the job done - - no question.

But there's another story to that 36-page RFP and I'm afraid it may be the price in having a bureaucratic dynamo in our corner. 

The lead times for grant applications and the complexity in coordinating RFP's with neighboring towns don't leave a lot of room for deliberation, particularly for messy public deliberation that might derail the "Program."  In this case, the Program is a 198' emergency communications tower above the Town Garage.  All the specifics of the Program were finalized sometime last autumn.  When unveiled last December, it was essentially a finished product going through the motions of public review.  To be fair to our Town Manager and a majority of Selectboard members, I believe they felt the public safety need so blatantly obvious and important that they simply did not imagine the level or basis of opposition they found.  I don't believe there was any intention to act by stealth or hide something from public view; they just thought this was a no-brainer and public review would be routine.  Unfortunately, for all of us involved in this controversy, the Program didn't account for significant deliberation so the time to discuss its finer points had already passed before it was presented.

While I credit his effort, I fault this Town Manager for failing to do the homework necessary to provide for alternatives if unforeseen issues arose with his chosen site.  I fault this Selectboard for failing to ask for alternative sites, if only as a basis for assessing the chosen site.  As I've argued strenuously elsewhere, the Program raises really troublesome regulatory and policy issues issues, some of which were apparent as soon as it was unveiled.  These issues only emerge through dialogue, through asking for other perspectives with some intention to actually listen to the responses.  That hasn't happened here. 

Instead, to keep the Program on track, this Town Manager has been forced to maneuver around opposition in ways which, I feel, both exceed the proper role of a statutory Town Manager and place this individual's personal credibility and judgment squarely at the center of any serious debate about building this specific tower.  The decision to place his personal credibility on the line was his and his alone:

- This Town Manager decided to publicly represent a 2010 draft feasibility study as a comprehensive engineering study demonstrating his chosen site to be the best site -- among several studied -- for this tower when, in fact, the 2010 study makes no such claim.  Whatever his motives, it meant the Capital Facilities Committee and Selectboard were given a take-it-or-leave-it choice between this site and some undefined fiscal and regulatory abyss.  This same lack of options has been cited by Selectboard members -- "there is no other option on the table" -- throughout for justifying sticking with the Program despite the concerns.

- When asked to consider a more thorough engineering review of potential sites consistent with telecommunications industry practice and our zoning regulations, this Town Manager has simply refused, claiming his personal engineering expertise makes such a study unnecessary.  Rather than addressing a reasonable request on its merits, this Town Manager turned the question of undertaking a more extensive engineering review into a Selectboard vote of confidence on his judgment.   

- This Town Manager has consistently argued that any other location for this tower, even if capable of equivalent coverage, would be prohibitively expensive due to the cost of acquiring the land to site the tower.  He has maintained this argument, despite the widespread industry practice of leasing land for telecommunications towers (and leased land here in Norwich for the Verizon tower), and trotted out this red herring again as recently as September 7th to underscore the possible risks in wavering from the Program. 

- As recently as the June 20th Public Forum, in response to citizen concerns about broadcast intensity from a tower proposed for a residential neighborhood, this Town Manager gave his personal assurance this tower -- unlike a cell tower -- would transmit at low intensity on an infrequent basis.  By July 11th, this Town Manager was recommending VTel own and operate this same tower for their 24/7 broadband transmissions and any co-located 24/7 cellular transmitters VTel might negotiate with other carriers. 

- At the July 5th Capital Facilities Committee meeting minutes, this Town Manager and Zoning Administrator outlined the local permitting process for this tower through our DRB and Act 250, stating the DRB would "hold a hearing Thursday, July 19, on the proposed tower. . . .  Fulton said there had never been an intention of bypassing the DRB process."  Less than a week later, they announced their proposal to avoid local permitting in favor of a 248A Certificate of Public Good from the Public Service Board.

- At the September 12th Selectboard meeting to consider seeking an FCC extension to allow time for a more thorough review of our options, this Town Manager stated categorically that an FCC extension is pointless because our transmitters are located on towers in Hanover and Hartford.  An FCC extension for us, he claimed, would therefore place both Hanover and Hartford in violation of their FCC narrow-banding requirement. 

And yet First Student, the national school bus company, received an FCC extension last Spring that includes frequencies transmitting from more than 100 different call signs owned by municipalities or private telecommunications companies who aren't deemed to be in violation.  See FCC extension, esp. footnote 3: http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0731/DA-12-1227A1.pdf

A call to FCC counsel confirms that the FCC licenses -- and extends licenses for -- transmission frequencies by call signs, regardless of the location or ownership of those call signs.  The 2010 draft feasibility study itself outlines options for implementing Norwich-only frequencies to improve existing wide-band and future narrow-band reception on existing towers.  And yet public debate of the extension option is reduced to a single categorical statement it can't be done.

The difference between honestly assessing the extension option and categorically foreclosing that option on his personal authority is the difference between advising the town on our options and managing the town towards a single preferred option.  These examples -- and many others I've left out -- demonstrate a pattern of deflecting substantive questions about the Program through representations of fact made on this Town Manager's personal authority which lose their luster under scrutiny.  Now, I'm well aware that a majority of the Selectboard (and, perhaps, a majority of the town's voters) feel the end justifies the means in this instance.  I don't and, for all the reasons I've laid out elsewhere, I find this manner of management -- of being managed -- a regrettable new phase in our small town democracy.

Nor is my purpose to tear down this individual Town Manager through personal attacks or otherwise.  On the contrary, I insist on his accountability because I expect he will be our Town Manager for years to come.  If we're going to make this Town Manager thing work in this town, with this individual, I believe we have to be more forthright in questioning his assumptions and exploring his view of the relevant facts.  He's got the smarts and the industry to make good use of those questions and his work product will be the better for it.  Given his management style, and his past history within town politics, I don't think this will be the last controversy of his tenure.  Active Selectboard and committee oversight that pushes him to consult opposing viewpoints before drawing his lines in the sand are our best chance to make this Town Manager a success both personally and for the town he serves.  I sincerely hope this unfortunate dispute will be a learning experience for town leadership, that they will more cautiously scrutinize each future "Program" up front so we don't again spend months learning the hard lesson the answer was settled in his mind well before the question was asked.

So is it fair to single out an individual town official by name under these circumstances?

I think so.  Given the management style he's demonstrated in pursuit of this Program it should be clear by now this tower in concept, placement, and management, is thoroughly his handiwork, for both good and bad.  In this respect, I feel, without vindictiveness or mockery, this tower is a fitting monument to, and necessary reminder of, the deeply alloyed positives and negatives of this Town Manager's way of doing business.  For these reasons, I cannot imagine a more appropriate name for it. 

On Confusion and Asymmetry

Steve Flanders Reading Statement at 10/4/12 SB Meeting (YouTube)

Statement as set out in the 10/4/12 SB Minutes:

Flanders then read the following statement:

“Each of us has a role in Town government. The Town Manager exercises direct control over the staff and facilities of the Town within the constraints of the budget voted by the Town, policies instituted by the Selectboard and Statutes of the state.  The Selectboard has the legislative responsibility of the Town; it answers to the voters in two ways; it proposes budgets and its members are elected to their positions. Along the way, it receives input from the public in warned, open meetings. The role of the voters is to approve budgets and monetary articles, vote for office holders, and provide input to the Selectboard and the Town Manager in appropriate settings.

All these roles have been observed in the deliberations about how to provide emergency and other Town communications in the transition to narrow banding of communications with the goal of providing substantially total coverage to the Town.

So, does either of the proposed articles contribute to the process of government? In my view, an advisory article can be useful if it reflects a priority about the character of the Town, for example, what level of community amenities to receive and pay for, what zoning regulations should define the townscape, etc. In a matter that is technical, legal, or based on economic calculations like the Town communications decision, an advisory article can create more confusion than illumination because the topics require a greater depth of understanding than a typical voter brings to the voting booth.

Let's look at each article in turn.

1. Shall the Town of Norwich vote to advise our Selectboard that we support the long- term lease and tower management rights of municipal property granted VTel as substantially described in the VTel/Town of Norwich Letter of Intent dated August 16, 2012 ?


Article One received sufficient signatures to be brought to the Selectboard using language in support of the VTel/Town Letter of Intent. There has been no evidence brought to the Selectboard that suggests that the Town would be substantially better off with a different agreement or by owning the tower itself.  An advisory vote would not provide the Selectboard with a substantially different body of technical and economic information in weighing the net benefit to the public interest than it has already received.


2. Shall the Town of Norwich vote to advise our Selectboard that we interpret the telecommunications infrastructure management goals set out by our Norwich Town Plan -- and Norwich Zoning Regulations enacted pursuant to that Plan -- as supporting the construction of telecommunications towers measuring up to two hundred feet in town for purposes of currently pending and future tower permitting review under 30 V.S.A. Section 248A?

Article Two is a legal question that would require those providing advice to be familiar with the Norwich Town Plan, Article 30 Vermont Statutes Annotated – Section 248A, and the Norwich Zoning Regulations, all of which the Selectboard has already given full consideration to with ample input from the public. It would be unrealistic to expect a vote to be the right medium for receiving advice on this topic.

In summary, I would like to emphasize that your Town government has made this decision in a responsible manner. There have been abutters to the proposed infrastructure who were dissatisfied with the solution. They have suggested that this decision was not made according to appropriate steps. They have used an asymmetrical campaign of list-serve postings and other steps to promote this point of view. This campaign included personal attacks and unsubstantiated claims. I say "asymmetrical" because neither the Selectboard, as a body, nor the Town Manager should be debating on the list serve. Their proper forum is in warned meetings.

These proposed articles create the impression that direct democracy is a tool of Town government in non-monetary decisions. It is not. State Statute specifies the rules for our representative democracy, which places such decisions squarely under the responsibility of the Selectboard.”

Due Diligence? (Letter to Valley News 9-25-12)

To the Editor:

Your Sunday editorial "Due Diligence - Norwich and the Cell Tower" oversimplifies what "irks" some residents about the "Fulton Tower" controversy in Norwich.

Since Norwich opted for a Town Manager more than a decade ago, we've struggled to make this administrative arrangement work.  To some degree, our first three town managers all succumbed to a Selectboard and political culture still rooted in the pre-town manager allocation of responsibilities.  To their credit, our current Selectboard has consciously set out to more clearly delineate the duties and authority delegated, by statute, to a town manager and last year hired a very promising new Town Manager in Neil Fulton.  This most recent kerfuffle over Fulton Tower is all the more surprising given the positive steps taken these past 18 months in finding a more mature relationship between Selectboard and Town Manager.

Again, to Neil Fulton's credit, since taking office he has moved quickly and decisively to prepare our public safety departments for the FCC "narrowbanding" deadline at the end of this year which prior regimes had either ignored or misunderstood.    Fulton is highly adept at the grant game and has already justified his salary increase many times over in securing hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants for police, fire and public works communications equipment this past year.  In the event, very few townspeople have seriously questioned the need for significant investment in emergency communications infrastructure.  Nevertheless, a major public safety infrastructure project which should have garnered broad public support has become a significant controversy.  Why?

If you ask me, it's a fairly straightforward -- cautionary -- tale of initial, understandable, oversights compounded by obstinance and a lack of public due diligence.

The controversy was there at the outset.  Fulton Tower is to be built in a valley along New Boston Road.  Due to the low base elevation in a hilly town, the structure needs to be very high to broadcast effectively.  The proposed height of 198 feet is a concession to avoid FAA regulations requiring a flashing red light on towers 200 feet or higher.   198 feet is the height of a 19 story building and about 140 feet above the surrounding tree line. 

This site and design were felt to be the most cost-effective solution to an acknowledged need.  But our Town Plan and zoning regulations don't rubber stamp towers -- even town-owned towers -- on the basis of cost-effectiveness.  Instead, they were drafted to steer developers towards siting towers where they can achieve their coverage objectives, if possible, no more than 20 feet above the surrounding tree line.  Adept tower developers -- like Verizon before they built their tower in Norwich back in 2006 -- research a number of possible sites to locate some with the topographical charcteristics that allow them to achieve their coverage objectives consistent with our height restrictions. 

Repeated public requests for an engineering study to look for sites that achieve our coverage needs in compliance with our own zoning regulations have been ignored.  Instead, we've been given a 2010 draft feasibility study which considers only this one site, suggesting no professional effort was ever made to look beyond this predetermined solution. 

Due diligence?   The initial oversight -- forgetting to consider our zoning regulations in designing a proposed tower -- is perhaps understandable, even for a Town Manager lauded for his engineering expertise.  I find it harder to grasp why our Selectboard felt no need to request siting options, especially once the zoning, height, and coverage concerns were raised last Spring. 

Unfortunately, the initial zoning compliance oversight has knock-on effects. 

Perhaps recognizing the zoning issue, the Town withdrew the original zoning application filed with our Development Review Board ("DRB") last July and decided, instead, to seek fast track review that would avoid local zoning and Act 250.  The Vermont Legislature created the fast-track option for tower developers through the Public Service Board under 30 VSA 248A several years ago in an effort to "juice" broadband infrastructure construction.  For those applicants wishing to avoid local and Act 250 review, 248A offers a cursory threshold to approval which includes a statement from either the town's Selectboard or Planning Commission that the proposed tower is consistent with the Town Plan. 

In our case, this means our Selectboard and Planning Commission will soon be asked to go on record that 198-foot towers are consistent with our Town Plan.  Inconveniently, more than a decade ago Norwich enacted detailed zoning regulations governing tower height consistent with our Town Plan.  In 2006, both our Development Review Board and the Act 250 District Commission, reviewing our Town Plan and zoning regulations, enforced these regulations to restrict Verizon's Norwich tower height to twenty feet above the surrounding tree line. 

Due diligence?  A decision by the Selectboard or Planning Commission to certify Fulton Tower's 198-foot height at the Public Service Board spurns these facts -- rejecting all the work done by townspeople in town plan discussion, Planning Commission review, and DRB adjudication of regulations we all naively thought reflected the conscious democratic will of the Town -- and creates a precedent that will be difficult to reverse. 

What basis will the town have to limit height for any future tower if we wink at this one? 

The only reason we now face this regrettable policy choice is because the original design for Fulton Tower never took into account our zoning regulations so never thought through how this tower would receive DRB and act 250 approval.  Every effort to flag these issues for the Town Manager and Selectboard have been met with dismissiveness and dissembling.

Then there's VTel. 

Whatever individuals may think of VTel's owner or the company itself, the proposed VTel contract is a questionable business deal for Norwich residents.  The idea behind this contract is, again. cost-effectiveness.  In exchange for building us a tower on town property to locate our emergency services transmitters, VTel will effectively own the tower for up to sixty years on this site rent-free. 

Due diligence?  At no time prior to approving the VTel Letter of Intent was the Selectboard or the public provided any information about typical lease rates, similar revenue share agreements, or co-location rates to help us judge the wisdom of this deal.  VTel will be using taxpayer grants to build a tower on town land it leases rent-free.  It will broadcast for-profit broadband signal to Norwich subscribers without paying any co-location rent or sharing any revenue from that service.  And it will keep 97 cents on every dollar any other broadcaster pays them in co-location rent potentially for the next sixty years.  When asked at a Selectboard meeting whether the 97/3 revenue share on colocation seemed reasonable, our Town Manager stated that he felt VTel saw this rate as non-negotiable.  I don't question our Town Manager's motives in trying to get a tower built cheap.  I question his business judgment in thinking a sixty year lease on these terms is cheap. 

As your editorial states, it is certainly within the authority of our Selectboard and Town Manager to act as they have.  However, the failure to do our homework up front has us, as a town, backpedaling into a series of really questionable business, regulatory, and policy decisions that are only being brought to light through the alarmed efforts of townspeople.  It may be "the cogs of local democracy are well-oiled in Norwich," but the administrative judgment of our town government -- and public due diligence made upon it -- is looking increasingly suspect. 

Embracing Fulton Tower (Norwich ListServ)

Well, it looks like Neil Fulton's finally got his tower. 

And make no mistake, this tower, Fulton Tower, will be built almost entirely due to his hard work and iron determination.  For both good and bad, I think it's fitting that his name should be attached to it.

To the good, Neil recognized a real public safety need and aggressively addressed the looming FCC narrowbanding deadline.  At nearly every meeting I've attended on this matter, his department chiefs have spoken honestly and forcefully about the anxious losses in emergency communications that a town of our resources need not tolerate.  As anyone who has experienced a real emergency understands, help either arrives in time or it does not.  Neil's confident this communications system can reach 95% of the town 95% of the time.  That's a real achievement and it's only a matter of time until the next real emergency puts that achievement in its proper context.

Neil's also a very, very effective grant-gleaner and has single-handedly coordinated an effort to retool our emergency communications infrastructure almost entirely through other folks money.  That's a real, practical skill -- with potential to greatly benefit the town and our tax bills -- that we've simply lacked until he took over. 

To the not so good, Fulton Tower has been, without question, a one-man show. 

Every decision about this tower -- from tower height to where it should be built; the how, the when and the where -- has been Neil's.  (Every decision save one -- the failed bond vote a couple weeks back.  For those who didn't attend this last Selectboard meeting, Neil's found a way to avoid risking another bond vote.)  Despite very substantial, sustained, and detailed public input seeking changes, Neil's original design and location for this tower have not changed in any significant way since first made public last December.  It begs the question how anyone with a different opinion was ever supposed to have input on the design and siting of this tower. 

Get used to it Norwich.  Public forums are planned for the new fire/police station at the Agway property.  We, the taxpayers, haven't technically bought the Agway property -- yet -- but the last Selectboard packet includes detailed architectural drawings of the new station on this site, right down to the placement of bicycle racks and wall lights. 

Maybe Neil will let us choose the color? 
Of the bike rack?

The real problem with a one-man show is that no one man or woman can have all the right answers.  The best leaders I've known all possessed the humility to understand better decisions come from active engagement with opposing points of view on the off-chance -- surprisingly common -- one might learn something important by really listening. 

Based on these past nine months, I'd say Neil has little time for our planning and zoning efforts, for the uniquely Vermont principle of institutionalizing the competing public and private interests at play in any land development through citizen-based review. 

Based on my legal experience, both the VTel and Clem/Agway proposals suggest to me Neil may also be out of his depth in development contracts.  Mr Guite and Mr Clem probably didn't achieve their respective business success by accommodating an easy mark. 

In my opinion, these are the inevitable blind spots that come with great talent in the zero-sum world of human intelligence.  A confident, assertive Selectboard might counter-balance these shortcomings without impairing Neil's real talents.  Maybe.  But as I've just learned in spades, Neil's greatest talent is in knowing how to get his way.  That, to me, has ominous implications when we're talking about town administrative staff meant to advise and support our town's legislative body.  Which is really my point. 

This town has an elected legislative body accountable to the voters.  Like it or not, the 3-2 vote to proceed with Fulton Tower, sponsored by VTel, showed tremendous political courage by each of our elected Selectboard members.  To their immense credit, each of the five has spoken openly, honestly, and bravely about why they voted as they did. Those they represent can ask no more than that.  It's our prerogative as voters to choose whether they serve.  It's their right and duty, once elected, to serve as they see fit. 

This town also has a town manager accountable directly to the Selectboard.  In the eleven years we've had a town manager, we're already on our fourth, so it's obvious the relationship between an elected Selectboard and their professional staff is not an easy one.  From where I sit - - and I'll do my best to get used to an eighteen-story albatross out the window across from me - - Fulton Tower represents a new reality in the evolution of our town manager form of government.  With respect to Fulton Tower, my role, as a town resident, has been reduced to a decision whether to sue the town in an attempt to force them (us?) to enforce our zoning regulations upon our own public infrastructure projects.  Whatever other role I imagined I had has been negated, sandbagged, side-stepped or dissembled away. 

I've been on the losing side of many battles, but this one has really gutted me.  Most of it I have to put down to my own unrealistic expectations. 

The reality is three Selectboard members patiently listened to every argument I, and many others, have made against Fulton Tower -- and everything it represents -- yet they were not persuaded. 

The reality is I've personally spent an inordinate amount of time these past two decades hand-wringing over planning, zoning, and how small town democracy "is supposed to work" largely naive to how calculated power actually holds sway.

The reality is I have a day job and the late nights pontificating here and elsewhere -- particularly these last nine months -- have finally caught up to me.

The reality is when we adopted a Town Manager eleven years ago, we created a bureaucracy.  We put in place a paid official who has more time and greater resources to shape town policy than either residents or the Selectboard/citizens who oversee that Town Manager can bring to bear. 

I feel very fortunate to have lived through that transition from an older Vermont to our Town Manager-led town government because, despite the deep sense of loss, I was there to witness the necessity of the change.  Maybe it's the greying hair and our kids beginning to leave the nest, but that sense of loss; the sense that the place we call home exists more and more in the past, has become inescapable for me. 

A friend told me a while back what a relief she felt when she finally unsubscribed from this listserv and let town politics go on without her.  I'm going to try that for a while.

Thanks for reading.

Third Tower Mistake - Subverting Local Planning and Zoning (Norwich ListServ)

Ten days ago, Steve Flanders wrote a lengthy defense of his rationale for supporting the proposed VTel tower.  At the time, I responded with two posts. 

The first asked Steve to make public the engineering and propagation studies that might substantiate his claims that this is the best site for a tower in town.  Of course, that was a rhetorical question as no such study was ever done.

The second asked Steve where he -- and the rest of those who voted for the VTel contract -- got the idea we would need to purchase any land, let alone "multiple acres," to build a tower on a non-town-owned site.  It's common practice to lease the land beneath telecommunications towers and, even then, those leases often extend no more than a 100 foot square around the tower base.  Verizon did this when they built on Four Wheel Drive Road.  VTel is proposing to lease land above our Transfer Station in the same manner.  Why keep trooping out this red herring of a costly land acquisition (Steve quotes $100,000 per acre as a potential price) when leases are the industry practice?

Then I got tired. 

So now I want to turn to Steve's "What about the Development Review Board process?" (Steve's entire paragraph is quoted in full at the bottom of this post)

First, Steve announces, "Vermont law exempts both municipal communication facilities and cellular/broadband facilities from local review." 

This is simply untrue. 

30 VSA 248a does not exempt these towers from local review; it simply allows applicants to choose between Public Service Board review or to seek permits through local zoning and Act 250 review.  That choice is up to the applicant. 

When the applicant is a town you might think the town would submit to the local review the town's voters (and Planning Commission and Selectboard) enacted? 

In fact, the Town did initially file an application to proceed before the Norwich Development Review Board.  The initial public hearing was warned for early July and some abutters even received legal notice of the DRB hearing.  That public hearing was then suddenly cancelled and our Zoning Administrator submitted a written recommendation that the town proceed, instead, through the 248a process before the Public Service Board.  The only reason I can see to back out of DRB review and choose instead the Public Service Board process was a determination by someone in Tracy Hall that 248a would be an easier process to get a 198' tower approved. 

So let's rephrase Steve's first pronouncement:  In truth, "Upon recommendation of our Zoning Administrator and Town Manager, a majority of our Selectboard decided to avoid local review."

Steve's second sentence glides over another whopper:

"Even so, they are subject to review by the Public Services Board, which will seek input from the Norwich Planning Commission and Norwich Selectboard."  As far as this goes, Steve is factually correct, 30 VSA 248a gives "substantial deference" to the recommendations of the local Selectboard and Planning Commission.  But consider for a moment what that means in this context. 

The Selectboard has already chosen to avoid local review via 248a.  Presumably, the Selectboard will recommend the Public Service Board ("PSB") approve this 198' tower as consistent with our Town Plan, despite the fact we enacted detailed height restrictions in our zoning regulations pursuant to that Plan.  If the PSB then approves a tower of this height as consistent with our Town Plan, how can this town ever again challenge any other tower developer who wants to build a huge tower somewhere else in town?  We can't because our Selectboard will already be on record stating that a 198' tower is no problem. 

So much for "input from the Norwich Planning Commission and Norwich Selectboard." 

Steve's third sentence also sticks in the craw, stating, "[The PSB] weighs the same factors that the Norwich Zoning Regulations would have done . . ." 

Two problems. 

First, Steve's contention is just plain not true.  248a spells out a clearly abbreviated set of required findings that is far shorter than those required under NZR 4.13, including our zoning requirement that these criteria be reviewed and testimony taken in public hearings.  Why else cancel the warned DRB hearing in July unless you're trying to avoid review under the Norwich Zoning Regulations?  Why avoid local review unless you think you're getting an easier ride from the PSB?

Second, of course, Steve's contention makes no sense.  If Steve were right about the process, why go all the way to the Public Service Board in Montpelier when we could do it all here in Norwich?  Our DRB has already permitted the Verizon tower in town, so we know our regulations work and compliant towers survive review.  The problem is, if this tower had to go through local review, it would be apparent that our Town Plan and zoning regulations don't rubber stamp 198' towers anywhere in town. 

So, Steve, if you really mean what you've said here, please vote tomorrow to submit this tower application to our Development Review Board. 

Let Tracy Hall go through the same review process we required Verizon to undergo six years ago. 

Let the rules and regulations our voters adopted to govern the development of telecommunications towers in Norwich govern this tower too.

Protect those regulations so we still have some local review authority when the next tower is proposed.

Respect the institutions -- and the hundreds and hundreds of volunteer hours that went into drafting and reviewing our Town Plan and zoning regulations -- that Norwich voters chose to adopt to govern land use development in our community. 

This local review process is the proper forum for our town government and townspeople to engage in the difficult work of building essential infrastructure consistent with local values.

- Watt Alexander


19. [Norwich] A towering question
From: Stephen Flanders
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 13:57:30 -0400

What about the Development Review Board process?
Vermont law exempts both municipal communication facilities and
cellular/broadband facilities from local review. Even so, they are subject
to review by the Public Services Board, which will seek input from the
Norwich Planning Commission and Norwich Selectboard. That Board weighs the
same factors that the Norwich Zoning Regulations would have done, before
being superseded by state law, i.e. the public good achieved by the facility
versus the visual and other impacts on the public at large‹not abutters.
This state review process is the proper forum for concerned citizens to make
their case.

There are Options (Norwich ListServ)

Chipper Ashley's post of late last night does an excellent job summarizing the thinking behind Tracy Hall's efforts to place a 198' tower at the Transfer Station.  A brief reply.

There's a reason our zoning regulations on tower heights begins:

"The height of towers, antenna, and tower related fixtures in all districts shall not exceed the minimum height necessary to achieve the coverage objective and, in any case, be no greater than 20 feet above the average height of the tree line within 100 feet of the base of the tower."  (NZR 4.13(C)(b))

This regulation is meant to strongly encourage developers -- including towns building towers -- to look for sites where a tower reaching just 20' above the surrounding tree line can provide the signal coverage it is designed for.  There's really no other purpose for this statement except to encourage tower developers to do their homework before proposing a tower site and design.  The proof is in the next sentence which authorizes our Development Review Board to allow higher towers where it's shown a tower just 20' above the treeline won't do the job. 

There's no reason to say tower height SHALL NOT EXCEED X and then say the DRB may make exceptions where necessary, unless the regulations meant to push tower developers to look for sites where a shorter tower would suffice. 

The town never did its homework on this site. 

The engineer's feasibility study only discusses this one site and never mentions why it needs to be 198' -- that's about 130' above the surrounding treeline. 

Every time I've raised this height concern, beginning last December, I've been told there's no reason to look at other sites. 

I'm told the engineer's study justifies the height, but that's simply not true. 

Steve Flander's recent post trooped out another favorite, that any other site would be prohibitively expensive, but his own basis for that assumption has nothing to do with typical tower leases. 

Our Town Manager has stated, publicly, that he will not consider other sites where a more compliant tower could work because he thinks it would be a waste of time. 

I understand the desire to keep this simple:  We have an FCC deadline -- we haven't yet filed for an extension of that deadline -- and we want to get this tower built as cheaply as possible. 

But for those who take our town plan and zoning regulations seriously; for those who recognize these regulations attempt to balance telecommunications needs with the visual impacts of building towers the first place it occurs to someone to build them; for those who held Verizon to these very height restrictions when they built their tower five years ago; it's incomprehensible that the town government would feel above the rules. 

A lot of assumptions were made to meet the year-end FCC deadline.  As the bond vote last week demonstrates, at least some of those assumptions are in question. 

We need to make the time to take the time to do this right:

It's time to file for an FCC extension to get this December 31st deadline off our backs.

It's time to authorize a proper engineering study that looks for site options in town where we can achieve our coverage goals without building a twenty-story tower.

It's time to suspend VTel negotiations until we are comfortable with tower site, height and ownership.

We're talking about fundamental town infrastructure that will outlast most everyone reading this post.  Let's do it right.



-    -    -    -    -
16. [Norwich] My take on the tower
From: Christopher Ashley
Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2012 22:13:51 -0400

Recent postings on the Norwich listserve have raised questions and
contained numerous comments regarding the decision making process and the
decisions by the Selectboard to place a radio tower near the transfer
station to accommodate the town’s fire, EMS, police, and public works
departments’ communication signals.