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)

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. 

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. 

First Tower Mistake - Asking the Answer Instead of the Question (Norwich Listserv)

It's not easy to recreate the thinking that led us to this tower proposal and design. 

The primary artifact is a draft feasibility study, dated October 22, 2010, (click on "Radio Communications Study" at http://norwich.vt.us/applications-reports-ordinances/).  The report, conspicuously marked "DRAFT REPORT" on every page, inventories current emergency communications equipment and then concludes a tower sited at the Norwich DPW/Town Garage/Dump would provide better coverage than a similar transmitter currently operating from Hurricane Hill in Hartford.  There's really not a lot more to it than that; try to read it through if you doubt me. 

What's clear is this feasibility study never asks which site would best provide optimal emergency services communications in town.  It never considered the most basic development guidelines imposed by Norwich zoning regulation restrictions on tower height or siting.  It never mentions siting a tower on leased private land at all.  Instead, it reads as though the engineer was simply asked to provide a feasibility study recommending a tower on the Norwich DPW site -- not whether it was the best choice or even a good one among all possible sites in town. 

This conclusion-as-a-premise was then compounded by a series of arbitrary and unilateral decisions about the tower design:

- Because the Norwich DPW site lies in a valley, the tower itself needs to be as high as possible to broadcast over the intervening hills and ridges; 
- FAA regulations require a flashing light on towers over 200 feet so it was decided, to avoid neighbor backlash, to restrict this tower to 198 feet, though that limits coverage; 
- The Fire/Police station was considered a candidate to improve signal propagation up the valleys that feed into downtown, but it was concluded a 198 foot tower, even without a flashing light, would elicit too much opposition in the more densely populated downtown.  

As a result, we have a proposal for a very tall tower sitting in a valley.  No effort was made to evaluate possible sites on higher terrain where a smaller tower, as urged by our zoning regulations, might provide equivalent coverage or better. 

Worse still, the feasibility study acknowledges, "Additional remote transmitter sites may be required to improve coverage in other areas of Town experiencing deficient coverage, such as the southwest portion of Norwich.  Our recommendation is the system should be evaluated for realtime coverage (from the Norwich DPW and Hayes Hill in Hanover) prior to implement (sic) supplemental solutions." 

In other words, until the Norwich DPW tower is up and running for a while, we won't know how well it works -- it's "realtime coverage" -- and so won't know whether additional towers may be needed to address "deficient coverage." 

My efforts to persuade the Capital Facilities Committee, the Selectboard, and the Town Manager these past nine months to go back and do a proper, unrestricted, engineering study seeking the best site for a tower to serve the most people have all been rebuffed on our Town Manager's insistence that his own experience in this field tells him there is no such site. Ask to see the propagation studies that substantiate that opinion and you're redirected to the feasibility study that never asks at all. 

How can this be when the very top of the proposed Norwich DPW tower will stand less than 950 feet above sea level while all the surrounding hills -- in fact 15,000 acres, more than half the town -- stands higher than 950 feet?  If elevation doesn't matter to signal coverage, then the town should reduce the tower to 80' -- just 20' above the surrounding tree line as our zoning regulations request -- and go get their Development Review Board permit.  But if elevation does matter to overall coverage why on earth build a tower in a narrow valley when your own feasibility study acknowledges doubts about coverage adequacy?  This is a matter of public safety after all. 

Why? 

Because we're under time pressure to get a tower built before the FCC narrow-banding deadline strikes on January 1, 2013.  The race to meet this deadline has placed expediency above all else.  As a result, a series of arbitrary, unilateral decisions have been made that we, as taxpayers and townspeople, are expected to live with for the next 60 years.  Decisions to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on long-term infrastructure the feasibility study itself acknowledged may require "supplemental solutions;" decisions to ignore local zoning regulation height restriction guidance as an avoidable inconvenience; to rebuff all inquiries whether other sites might prove a better long-term investment for the town; and, most recently, to give this half-baked tower site to VTel for sixty years in the name of thrift. 

I want to emphasize here that I do not, for a moment, doubt our Town Manager's earnest and diligent belief he is doing the best he can to meet this FCC deadline.  He's a highly intelligent man absolutely dedicated to meeting what he sees as a fundamental obligation to protect the community.  Unfortunately, fixated on that deadline, his intransigence towards all efforts to broaden the scope of our tower investment has painted us all -- selectboard, town manager, townspeople, and now VTel -- into a corner with little time left and waning public support. 

Ultimately, this tower proposal suffers from a hasty, ill-conceived foundation.  It's time to stop shoring it up and recognize this controversy is undermining confidence in the architects.

There is still time to undertake an engineering study focused on siting and designing a tower to address our long-term telecommunications goals.  A proper study will cure many of the missteps already made and help restore public confidence that this is a shared effort to solve our narrow-banding challenge, avoiding another futile bond vote such as we had this week. 

Civic Virtue (Norwich ListServ)

I'm baffled. 

On paper, we probably have the most talented and even-tempered group of Selectboard members I've seen since the early 1990's. 

On paper, at least, this is the most qualified Town Manager we've ever hired. 

The rancor and ill will of the last decade finally seemed to have subsided and yet, in practice, this group has got themselves in a tangle over this tower that is only just beginning. 

Back last December 9th, I posted a lengthy critique of the proposal to site a 198' tower in a valley along the drainage that borders New Boston Road.  In the past nine months, I've spent dozens and dozens of hours writing to the listserv and selectboard, appearing at capital facilities committee and selectboard meetings, and pursuing extended conversations with individual selectboard members and our town manager pleading with them to slow down and revisit the basic premises of a misconceived tower project that is now, perhaps, unraveling before our eyes. 

Over the next ten days, I'm going to post a steady stream of sometimes pointed critiques of how we got into this mess.  I hope to persuade those town officials, townspeople, and taxpayers who still need persuading that we need to reject the VTel contract and get on with building a tower that actually is designed to serve the community for the long-term. The VTel tower proposal was designed and managed in a manner that has, I feel, diminished town institutions and now threatens to discredit the selectboard members and town manager who have -- in the earnest belief they are doing the right thing -- championed it.

For now, I just want to relate one important lesson -- the essential civic virtue -- I've learned these past nine months: 
Embrace the opposition. 
Try, in good faith, to understand what they are saying, however shrill or close-minded they may seem, simply on the off chance they may see something you do not. 
Give them a listen because we don't know what we don't know and it's often the least pleasant experiences that teach us the most. 
And in a democracy, trust in compromise with those who oppose you because, over time, unilateral decisions simply don't survive.

One of the best examples of this civic virtue in action can be found in our chief of police, Doug Robinson. 
For those who recall a few years back, Chief Robinson, fairly new to the job and working under an earlier town manager, found himself and his department raked across the coals for being out of touch with the community he was meant to serve.  The difference in his response and that of his boss was marked.  Doug went out of his way to meet with concerned citizens wherever they wanted to talk; patiently explained his views on difficult topics and showed flexibility as he came to understand opposing viewpoints.  He listened then and has since exhibited that same wisdom and good judgment in some very difficult settings, in the effort becoming a chief of police who completely nullified the concerns many townspeople had expressed about the size and mentality of our police force, becoming an exemplary public servant and a true asset to the town. 
His boss, less flexible and more confident in his own road, has since moved on.

Most of the mistakes made in this tower misadventure, I believe, are the result of haste and a fundamental misjudgment -- made nine months ago -- that the looming FCC deadline justified trying to bull through the opposition.  Our current town manager is an individual of exceptional talents and, with due respect to his predecessors, his capabilities far exceed even what we thought we might find when we first recommended creating a town manager position a decade ago. I strongly believe this town manager can also become an exemplary public servant and long-term asset to the town if he can learn to trust this same civic virtue. 

Our efforts to present a practical alternative to the current proposal -- based on demonstrated community standards and designed to serve both public safety and broadband telecommunications goals that may well be more cost effective and more functional -- has fallen on deaf ears these past months.  It's time to stop dismissing those of us who live near New Boston Road as NIMBYites and those who live further off as vocal cranks.  Time is running out, there's important work to do and the mistakes made today in the name of expediency will, in retrospect, seem incomprehensible errors this town will have to live with for decades. 

i vote no (Norwich ListServ)

I too plan to vote "no" on the tower bond tomorrow, not because I think a "no" vote actually matters, but precisely because it doesn't. 

It should be plain to anyone paying attention that we are simply going through the motions of democratic review of this tower.  The $275k figure was based on a tower design and ownership structure that a majority of the Selectboard abandoned weeks ago.  If the bond is approved, the Town Manager has conceded he doesn't need a third of the authorized figure.  If this bond is voted down, the Town Manager will no doubt find that $85k through grants elsewhere. 

Back in early July, at the Town Manager's urging, a majority of the Selectboard approved this bond language.  Linda Cook alone voted against it claiming, rightly it turns out, that it made no sense asking voters to assume debt without firm plans on how much would be needed or how it would be spent.  The majority that evening justified this bond-vote-without-a-plan as an opportunity for the public to weigh in on the overall tower proposal.  In the meantime, they decided everything themselves.  Ten days ago, I stood before the Selectboard and asked how this bond vote could provide a meaningful opportunity for the public to weigh in on the tower proposal if the tower specifics were already decided in their minds and the VTel contract makes the bond vote meaningless?  No one could say, but we're urged to vote "yes" nonetheless. 

Not me, I value my vote too highly.

Bad Tower (Letter to Capital Facilities Committee)

We have holiday plans (and limited internet access) that prevent me from attending your July 5th meeting so please share this email with your committee as "Public Comment" regarding the proposed tower.

It is my understanding that you all are expected to provide a committee recommendation to the Selectboard ahead of their July 11th.  Based on my inbox and voicemail, I think it would be a mistake to interpret public turnout at 8am following a national holiday as lack of interest in this issue.

As best I can tell, the tower proposal before you was developed to address a technical coverage problem without fully appreciating the regulatory process a tower of this scale would face.  Understandably, the tower proposal reflects the task given the consultant last year.  I think it's fair to say we would be discussing a very different tower proposal had the consultant been asked to identify sites in town where a tower would
a) improve upon existing coverage (or even seek to achieve 100% coverage) while
b) complying with the presumptive height restrictions set out in our zoning regulations.

Based on quotations in the Valley News and what I've seen firsthand, I think Neil's made a decision to forge ahead with this specific proposal feeling it has a decent chance of surviving regulatory challenge.  Given the odds, I assume he feels this route should be pursued before putting any more resources into investigating alternative sites/proposals. 

As a public opponent to this specific proposal, I question the wisdom of this approach.

I doubt there was any way Neil could have anticipated the resistance this proposal has already elicited.  However, now that it's clear there are serious questions being asked about the proposed tower, Neil, and consequently you all, need to make a calculated guess whether to bull forward in the hope this resistance can be overcome, or to slow down and try to accommodate those aspects of resistance that might lead to a better result long-term. 

One risk of bulling forward is that the DRB and/or Act 250 District Commission ultimately require the town to provide consultant analysis of alternative sites where a tower just 20' above the tree line could provide equivalent or superior coverage to the proposed site.  The financial cost of doing this analysis only after bulling forward would be compounded by the political cost to Tracy Hall of having guessed wrong at this juncture.

A second risk of bulling forward is that it hardens everyone's positions.  The Town, acting through the Town Manager, this committee and the Selectboard, would be saying whatever window there might have been to rationally explore whether this is the best use of town resources to address the narrow-banding deadline has now closed.  It's now all about the raw power of the ballot box, a late summer bond vote, and the lawyers opponents can bring to the regulatory process. 

Finally, bulling forward risks perpetuating a basic, understandable, error made at the outset of this process. 

Did anyone ever suggest to the consultant that any tower should be designed to stay within 20' of the surrounding tree line as expected under NZR 4.13(C)(b)? 

There's a reason for this provision and it's not arbitrary.

The entire telecommunications section of our zoning regulations reflects a well-worn national effort to arrive at a balance between the need to improve wireless communications of all kinds and the negative impacts these towers impose.  These model regulations try to influence tower design at the outset to site towers where they can achieve their coverage goals without literally towering over the landscape.  While some may feel these impacts are unimportant in their own judgement, our zoning regulations clearly do not.  And yet this tower proposal appears to have overlooked our zoning regulations from the beginning.  While I sympathize with the sense of urgency regarding the year-end deadline, I find this selective disregard for applicable regulations surprising and disturbing.

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. 

Another Tower (Letter to Selectboard)

                                                                                                                                                      

   Due to a prior engagement, I cannot attend the Selectboard Meeting this Wednesday, June 27th.  I am submitting this letter -- a slightly condensed version of my recent four-part post on the Norwich listserv -- as public comment to the Town Manager’s presentation on the Emergency Communications Tower proposed for the hill above the Town Garage on New Boston Road.

Based on my attendance at last Wednesday’s public forum, the presentation demonstrates his strengths in abundance:

- Digesting extremely complex data into clear, informative overviews;
- Providing comprehensive, thorough treatment of an issue that doesn’t gloss over difficult issues;
- Strong efforts to minimize infrastructure cost through siting and grant coordination;
- An open demeanor and patience with divergent viewpoints;
- Apparently very good rapport with Fire, Police, and Public Works heads to assess and address their needs.

Indeed, I paraphrase (may not be verbatim because I don’t know shorthand) a statement he made at the most recent Public Forum which illustrates his focus and priorities regarding the proposed tower quite well:

“I have been focused on finding a solution that meets the needs of our three public safety departments.  I think if it meets the needs of those three departments it meets the needs of our 3,400 residents.”

While I ultimately disagree with the statement, I respect the viewpoint behind it and honestly believe we are fortunate to have a town manager in place today who brings such dedication, intelligence, and consciousness of role to the position.

I disagree with the statement’s “what’s good for GM is good for America” conclusion because it defines the problem as a purely administrative/public safety issue.

In fact, a 198’ tower impacts home values and views, individual property rights traditionally governed by land use regulation.  It also requires expanding the town’s bonding authority to pay for the tower, raising political considerations in addition to purely fiscal concerns. 

Finally, it is a case study in how administrative bureaucracy inevitably operates on different criteria -- and responsive to a different constituency -- than elected officials, even in very small towns.

My comments:

This is not the first standalone communications tower proposed for Norwich.

I was Chair of our Development Review Board early last decade when Verizon Wireless applied to build a cell tower above Upper Loveland Road.  At the time, cell towers were popping up all along I-91 and I-89 as Verizon sought to create a corridor of uninterrupted cell coverage along both interstates.

To their credit, Verizon knew they would face Development Review Board review in Norwich and they worked hard to anticipate likely points of friction with neighboring landowners.

As required by our zoning regulations, their initial proposal limited the height of their tower to the minimum they felt acceptable to achieve their coverage goals.  To further minimize adverse visual impact on neighbors, they sited the tower where few -- if any -- houses could see it even when leaves are down.  They also designed the tower as a mock white pine so it would be lost in the surrounding tree cover to those who might view it from afar.  They did all this precisely because they knew they had to undergo a permitting process.

The resulting tower -- similar to the tower on the hilltop just southeast of Exit 12 on I-91 -- is difficult to see even when you’re looking for it.  It achieves Verizon’s coverage goals with minimal impact on neighbors or those traveling on public roads in their viewshed.

In my opinion, the Verizon cell tower is a positive example of permitting and land use regulation.  DRB review under clear, considered regulatory criteria helps smart developers tailor their proposals to anticipate objections, mitigating those they feel they cannot fully satisfy.  It gives those most impacted by the proposed development an opportunity to challenge the most offensive impacts under objective standards.   A transparent process has the advantage of being recognized to be fair even if some parties don't get everything they want.  This leads to a better development plan overall and a politically more acceptable outcome in the end.

In terms of impacts, I see no difference between this tower proposal and Verizon's cell tower built seven years ago.  However, the proposed towers themselves could hardly be more different:

Where Verizon achieved their coverage objectives by siting a 82’ tower on a heavily forested height, the current proposal’s only concession to neighbors was the choice to keep it under 200’ so it won’t require a flashing red light on top.

Where Verizon selected their proposed site to balance coverage objectives against the tower’s visual impact upon neighboring properties -- and chose colors and camouflaging to further minimize visual impacts -- the current proposal (admittedly in an effort to contain costs) appears to have limited in-depth site analysis to town-owned properties.  They then limited coverage objectives to what would be possible from the public works/transfer station site with a tower just under 200’.

Finally, where Verizon understood and anticipated the regulatory requirements, there appears to be some confusion among town officials whether a DRB hearing is even needed for this proposed tower.*

It appears to me this confusion regarding the need for DRB review has allowed the tower proposal to get ahead of itself, leading to a proposed design that may be penny-wise, but pound foolish; a proposal that might have met less opposition and produced a better result for all had the applicable DRB review criteria been in mind from the start.

-----

* From my reading of our zoning regulations, there is simply no question the proposed tower requires DRB review:

Section 1.02(A) clearly states our regulations apply to “all lands in this community” without exception for town-owned land.

Section 1.03(A) states, “No land development shall commence within the jurisdiction of the Town of Norwich except in compliance with the provisions of these regulations.”

Section 4.11 provides expedited DRB review of “Public Facilities” but explicitly requires those facilities conform to our zoning regulations with respect to “location, size [and] height.”

The extensive location, size and height criteria for “telecommunications facilities” such as the proposed tower are set out in Section 4.13 - - the same regulations we applied to the Verizon tower eight years ago.  


Our Town Manager and the three department heads of our emergency services departments -- fire, police, and public works -- make a very persuasive case for the need to address our emergency communications infrastructure.  At last week’s public forum, they each recounted specific incidents where their people or town residents were in significant danger in areas where existing emergency communications cannot reach today.

One Chapel Hill Road resident echoed these concerns, referring to an incident where emergency medical response was dangerously delayed due to limited emergency communications coverage.

Due to difficult topography and the radio “shadows” cast by the ridges fanning out from downtown, our existing emergency communications coverage cannot reliably reach many houses along the valleys throughout town, most notably Beaver Meadow/Bragg Hill/West Norwich and the Goodrich Four Corners/Route 132 area in northeast Norwich.  

FCC-mandated “narrow-banding" -- first announced several years ago -- takes effect at year-end, throttling down existing bandwidth for emergency services and, if not addressed, resulting in significantly worse coverage than exists today.

Based on the coverage maps provided at the public forum, a proposed 198’ tower above the Town Garage -- together with complementary coverage from towers in neighboring towns -- would substantially improve emergency services communications above existing coverage levels even after the narrow-banding rules come into effect at year-end.

However, due to tower site and height characteristics, two areas would remain in the shadows without some or any emergency services communications coverage.

The biggest shadow falls over old West Norwich comprised of Chapel Hill Road, Mitchell Brook Road, Tigertown Road, Podunk Road, and some parts of outer Beaver Meadow Road including adjacent sections of Tucker Hill and Bragg Hill Roads.

A smaller shadow appears over Ladeau and Kerwin Hill Roads near Thetford.

Given the need to borrow money through bonds to build this tower anyway, doesn’t it make sense to thoroughly research the possibility of finding a single site -- whether publicly- or privately-owned -- that might extend coverage to these two remaining shadows?

As it now stands, our coverage objective is actually whatever we can achieve from a site that is currently town-owned with a tower that is just short enough to avoid a flashing red light on top.  Cold comfort to those in its shadows.

In other words, given its public safety purpose, shouldn’t our coverage objective for this tower be to eliminate all existing shadows and cover 100% of the public within our borders if at all possible?

Can we find a single tower site that might eliminate the West Norwich and Kerwin Hill shadows entirely?

It may be the cost of acquiring and building a tower on a more effective site is too much for town residents to stomach.

It may be a more effective tower site imposes other impacts that make it unsuitable.

It may be there simply is no single site that can achieve a 100% coverage goal.

We can only find out by trying.

The point is, Verizon did a thorough analysis of coverage and site development characteristics on a number of potential sites before bringing forward a specific proposal.  Based on the responses to questions at last week’s public forum, it appears we haven’t.

Verizon understood our regulations limit tower height to 20’ above the surrounding tree line lacking compelling evidence a higher tower is absolutely required to achieve a coverage objective.  (See NZR Section 4.13 (C)(b))  As a result, they sought out sites on higher terrain, using topography to achieve better coverage without exceeding the 20’-above-tree-line limitation.  In other words, they achieved their coverage objective -- admittedly more modest than ours -- by siting a smaller tower at a higher elevation.

The proposed tower at the Town Garage site does just the opposite, seeking to overcome a valleyside location at 750’ elevation with 198’ of tower structure -- probably 120’-140’ feet above the surrounding tree line.  The potential for delay in getting a tower of this size through DRB and Act 250 review could well mean we miss the year-end FCC narrow-banding deadline anyway.

Based on the propagation maps shared at the public forum, it would appear a smaller tower more consistent with our zoning regulations, sited closer to the Sharon border -- along the ridge that runs between Beaver Meadow and Turnpike Roads where elevations reach more than twice the proposed tower site -- might achieve better -- perhaps 100% -- coverage for town residents with minimal impact on neighbors or viewsheds.  The cost involved and other practical considerations can only be determined by a more thorough investigation of these options.

I respect the initial impulse to try to limit costs by focusing on town-owned properties.  I understand the sense of urgency to erect a tower before the narrow-banding throttle takes effect at year-end.  It’s hard to see how we can meet that deadline if we seriously consider higher elevation and privately-owned sites given the additional acquisition and construction requirements involved.

Nevertheless, if we are making a major long-term investment to improve emergency services communications coverage in town, let’s do the up front work now - - while there’s still time -- to see whether we can achieve 100% coverage for our residents and the emergency personnel we depend upon.

It may cost more at the outset and we may miss the year-end deadline as a result, but these near-term concerns pale, in my opinion, set against even a single fatal incident occurring in one of these shadows that might have been avoided had we taken the time now to eliminate the shadows entirely.