1 1 2 1 STATE OF CONNECTICUT 2 3 SITING COUNCIL 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 CELLULAR SYMPOSIUM 16 17 RE: COORDINATION AND COOPERATION 18 19 AMONG JURISDICTIONS 20 21 MARCH 2, 2006 22 23 (3:00 P.M.) 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 THE BUSHNELL PERFORMING ARTS CENTER 36 37 HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT
3 4 5 POST REPORTING SERVICE 6 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 2 2 RE: COORDINATION AND COOPERATION 3 MARCH 2, 2006 4 5 1 . . . proceedings of a Cellular Symposium
2 held by the State of Connecticut Siting Council at the
3 Bushnell Performing Arts Center on March 2, 2006.
4
5
6 CHAIRMAN PAMELA B. KATZ: We ask everyone
7 to take a seat please. Our plan is to conclude by 4:30
8 and we’d like to keep --
9 (Pause)
10 CHAIRMAN KATZ: While we’re getting
11 everyone settled, I was not surprised when T-Mobile was
12 talking about how many teenagers had cell phones. When
13 our son was a teenager, when he got his driver’s license,
14 we put him on the plan. And his orders were -- we didn’t
15 give him any minutes, but he was on the cell phone plan,
16 and when he was out in the car with his friends, he was
17 under orders to have the cell phone on. So, I understand
18 why there are that many kids in this day and age who are
19 teenage drivers who have cell phones.
20 When Derek and I were laying out the
21 agenda for today, one of the items that we talked about is
6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 3 2 RE: COORDINATION AND COOPERATION 3 MARCH 2, 2006 4 5 1 that the fact that Connecticut is one of the few states
2 that has a Siting Council and how the State can override
3 local planning and zoning on the siting of cell towers --
4 oh, that’s right, we’re not calling them cell towers --
5 cell sites. So, we could override local planning and
6 zoning. And one of the questions was well is this a good
7 idea? Should we go back to the old system? And I’m a
8 former selectman. And in the old system, you know, we
9 know what’s best on the town level. Home rule is big in
10 Connecticut. And so I thought it was a very interesting
11 topic of discussion.
12 Now over lunch I called them volunteers
13 for the panel. And Natalie Ketcham reminded me they were
14 draftees, they were not really volunteers.
15 MS. NATALIE KETCHAM: Willing, but
16 nevertheless.
17 CHAIRMAN KATZ: Right. And as I say, one
18 of the few perks about the Siting Council job is that when
19 you make that phone call, you do -- they do take the call.
20 And they were willing to participate in this. So, I’d
21 like to introduce the panel and then I’m going to turn it
6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 4 2 RE: COORDINATION AND COOPERATION 3 MARCH 2, 2006 4 5 1 over to Vice-Chairman Colin Tait, who is going to moderate
2 this discussion. On the panel we have two municipal
3 leaders who got to know the Siting Council process up
4 close and personal from dockets that we did in their
5 towns, and they can indicate to you how -- perhaps
6 differing opinions on how that went.
7 First, on the end of the panel we have
8 Natalie Ketcham, who is First Selectman of Redding.
9 Next to her is Jim Finley. Jim is from
10 CCM, the Connecticut Council of Municipalities, which
11 represents the interests of Connecticut towns and before
12 the legislature especially.
13 And next to him is Karl Kilduff. We did a
14 docket in North Branford and so he can speak from that
15 experience on how this works.
16 And Bill Voelker, who is town planner of
17 Cheshire and my former town planner when I was a Simsbury
18 selectman. Bill has been proactive on the towns getting
19 involved on a municipal level in the siting of cell
20 towers.
21 So at this time, I would like to turn it
6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 5 2 RE: COORDINATION AND COOPERATION 3 MARCH 2, 2006 4 5 1 over to -- as moderator to Vice Chairman Colin Tait.
2 (Applause)
3 MR. COLIN TAIT: I’m not sure of my role.
4 I thought I might be a referee. I’m not sure I’m going to
5 be a punching bag. (Laughter). These are all local
6 officials, so -- or have had local process with us.
7 I’m going to go back to government 101 for
8 a little bit. I’m a professor, but I don’t teach in
9 political science, but you’ve heard today the various
10 jurisdictions that are involved. The FCC, we had a very
11 nice one on what they do and what they don’t do.
12 Basically, they delegate it to us. And so we’re not
13 getting into federalism right now, but I suspect that if
14 we don’t do our job well enough at the town level or the
15 state level, the FCC may come in and decide they can do a
16 better job than we can. So, the federal presence is sort
17 of like a brooding and ominous presence there that we have
18 to keep in mind as we think about what governmental level
19 should be doing the regulation of siting and those sorts
20 of things. So the real decision in Connecticut has been
21 should towns do it or do -- or should the State do it?
6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 6 2 RE: COORDINATION AND COOPERATION 3 MARCH 2, 2006 4 5 1 We don’t have in Connecticut a regional
2 zoning authority with any teeth. Back in 1959 we had
3 counties which might have served the function for being
4 regionalism, but in our finite wisdom we did away with
5 them in 1959. So we have no interim body that can deal
6 with this other than an advisory system. And as Pam
7 mentioned, home rule in Connecticut is a given. We have
8 169 towns and we -- myself and my town also are very
9 jealous of our town and we know what’s best for our town.
10 The question is this is not a local issue. It’s not even
11 a State issue. It’s a national issue of how we get a
12 seamless reliable web. And the question is what’s the
13 best way about going and doing that? And so in
14 Connecticut we have -- initially the State and the towns
15 -- we did -- the Siting Council did cellular and the towns
16 did PCS. And we got two systems going on and the carriers
17 had to deal with both local zoning boards and the Siting
18 Council. The Second Circuit -- the Federal Second Circuit
19 Court of Appeals upheld a case that said no, the Siting
20 Council has it all. And I don’t think that was a happy
21 decision for many towns. It’s something that we now have
6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 7 2 RE: COORDINATION AND COOPERATION 3 MARCH 2, 2006 4 5 1 to live with.
2 But the discussion today is how can we do
3 it better? What is a good role for the towns? What is a
4 good role for the Siting Council? And how can we work
5 together to get the best solution for the State of
6 Connecticut?
7 So, I think the first thing to do is for
8 each member of the panel to give a short statement as to
9 what they think the problem is and the solution is, and
10 then let’s open it up for questions and answers. Natalie.
11 MS. KETCHAM: Yes, sir. Good afternoon.
12 If you can hear me? I’m Natalie Ketcham from the Town of
13 Redding. And I can consider myself coming from the
14 heartland of home rule.
15 In the Town of Redding we rarely have any
16 political contests at election time. Political
17 affiliation takes a backseat to philosophical evolution
18 and orientation. There is a decided Redding vision. And
19 candidates who get it, will not have opposition by either
20 party. The Redding vision is about preservation of the
21 environment, of our historical heritage, and of our rural
6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 8 2 RE: COORDINATION AND COOPERATION 3 MARCH 2, 2006 4 5 1 landscape. The trappings of modern society such as
2 utility transmission poles and cellular towers are most
3 unwelcome. And left to our own devices, they would be
4 uniformally rejected.
5 Even as the staunchest supporter of home
6 rule, intellectually I recognize that that approach begs
7 the question of our role in greater society. By
8 protecting our borders from unwanted structures, we
9 deprive other citizens in the State, and has been noted
10 today, in the country and even the world of energy
11 upgrades and continuous cellular service. Do we have that
12 right? Some would say yes and some would say no, just as
13 with any other political question.
14 This is where I think that the Connecticut
15 Siting Council has a constructive role to play. It
16 provides a mechanism for balancing the needs of our
17 society with local priorities. I speak from experience.
18 My first term in office I was confronted with what seemed
19 to be the largest utility upgrade in the world. Phase 1
20 of CL&P’s 345-kV transmission line upgrade which was going
21 to march right through Redding from Bethel to Norwalk,
6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 9 2 RE: COORDINATION AND COOPERATION 3 MARCH 2, 2006 4 5 1 replacing 80-foot innocuous wooden structures with 130-
2 foot steel monopoles. This proposal horrified our
3 community, as have subsequent cell site applications.
4 Since the decision-making body in both
5 cases is the Siting Council, it would be easy to take a
6 hands off approach, saying literally it’s out of our
7 hands, there is nothing we can do about it. I have
8 learned from experience that that is simply not true. And
9 municipal officials who think that way are doing a
10 disservice to their communities and to the Siting Council,
11 which welcomes and very definitely needs municipal input
12 in its decision-making. Unfortunately though, it has also
13 been my experience that this opportunity for municipal
14 input is under-used. When attending Siting Council
15 meetings, which routinely have 20 to 30 applications on
16 the agenda, the room is filled with applicants and their
17 representatives and very few, if any, municipal
18 representatives.
19 The Town of Redding has been willing to
20 invest significant resources to tell our story to the
21 Siting Council. We battled a nilpotent utility by hiring
6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 10 2 RE: COORDINATION AND COOPERATION 3 MARCH 2, 2006 4 5 1 the best legal counsel we could find and energy experts
2 who would give us the knowledge and the ability to enter
3 into the technical dialogue. The Siting Council listened.
4 When CL&P proposed to place a transition station for the
5 upgraded line in a spot that was unacceptable to an entire
6 neighborhood, we didn’t roll over. We hired a viewshed
7 analyst to digitally compare the impact on neighboring
8 homes from that location and other locations. We proved
9 to the Siting Council that there was a better location and
10 one that impacted fewer homes. The Siting Council heard
11 us and ordered CL&P to build the station in the town’s
12 preferred location.
13 We have had similar experiences with cell
14 tower applications. In every case we have participated
15 vigorously in the process. I have found that the Siting
16 Council welcomes information from the municipality so that
17 they are not just relying on the applicant’s data. My six
18 years in office have taught me that there is usually more
19 than two sides to the story, but if you can at least hear
20 two sides, decision-making is greatly enhanced.
21 In multiple dockets the Siting Council has
6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 11 2 RE: COORDINATION AND COOPERATION 3 MARCH 2, 2006 4 5 1 demonstrated to Redding that it wants and respects
2 municipal participation in the process. I would encourage
3 the carriers and their representatives here today to take
4 that to heart and to sincerely engage municipalities in
5 the consultation process. I would also encourage towns
6 who are not satisfied with the results of that process to
7 take their case to the Siting Council, it will get a fair
8 hearing. Thank you.
9 MR. TAIT: Thank you, Natalie. Jim,
10 you’re next.
11 MR. JIM FINLEY: Thank you. Derek told me
12 that my role is to say I’m mad as hell and we’re not going
13 to take it any more -- (laughter) -- but you know, I don’t
14 have that much energy at this point in the afternoon. But
15 seriously, the First Selectman said many things very well
16 concerning the issues facing municipalities and the
17 relationship between the Siting Council and cities and
18 towns. And as one that went through the metamorphosis in
19 regard to jurisdiction and the like and fought the battles
20 in the legislature and saw things go forward, part of --
21 part of the fact is that there are 169 towns and cities in
6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 12 2 RE: COORDINATION AND COOPERATION 3 MARCH 2, 2006 4 5 1 Connecticut. Seventy percent of them are 30,000 and below
2 in population. They basically on the general government
3 side have a road crew and a town hall clerical staff, your
4 board of ed has the most employees, the most
5 administrative resources and things of that nature. And
6 so municipalities start off in the equation on the
7 defensive and vulnerable. They don’t have a cohesive bank
8 of resources in order to weigh in with the Siting Council
9 on siting decisions and things of that nature. And it
10 often takes neighborhood groups to try to prod their town
11 government officials to get involved in siting decisions,
12 and as the First Selectman mentioned, to take full
13 advantage of the opportunities that they have in the
14 siting process to let the views of the town and its people
15 be known in that regard.
16 A couple of things that I hear from local
17 officials across the State in regard to siting decisions,
18 in a perfect world it would be great if the Siting Council
19 could have determined locational grids for cell towers to
20 reduce the amount of proliferation instead of relying on
21 the vagaries of individual carrier service gaps to
6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 13 2 RE: COORDINATION AND COOPERATION 3 MARCH 2, 2006 4 5 1 determine where the siting of a cell tower would go. And
2 I know that the Siting Council has pushed co-location when
3 it’s appropriate and things of that nature, but the fact
4 of the matter is there are multiple carriers out there,
5 locational decisions are based upon the idiosyncrasies of
6 each carrier’s service areas. It doesn’t make sense when
7 you think about it if you’re concerned about the
8 environment, the aesthetics, property values and things of
9 that nature. That’s some of the things that we hear from
10 communities across the State. And we understand some of
11 the impediments of the Siting Council taking a stronger
12 role in that regard. But I think we could all wipe the
13 chalkboard clean and we could figure out locational grids,
14 try to ameliorate some of the disputes in regard to owns
15 the towers, who gets to rent a space and things of that
16 nature, which really put a big impact and a negative one
17 on many communities and forces a lot of foment at the --
18 particularly the neighborhood level. When somebody has
19 spent their resources to purchase their homes and the next
20 thing they know there’s a big to do about a 150-foot cell
21 tower that’s going to be put in their neighborhood -- and
6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 14 2 RE: COORDINATION AND COOPERATION 3 MARCH 2, 2006 4 5 1 you know, that’s the biggest resource that people have.
2 It’s -- to many folks that’s the money in the bank for
3 their retirement and things of that nature. And -- and I
4 know the Siting Council is sensitive to the concerns that
5 these siting issues present to folks.
6 We also hear a lot at the local level
7 about health concerns and things of that nature. Again,
8 the science is a little murky in that regard. But it
9 forces local officials to really bear the brunt -- even
10 though the decisions are made at the state level, the
11 impacts are local. And often municipal officials feel
12 that they’re not on a level playing field with the
13 industry in regard to bringing their concerns before the
14 Siting Council and because of limited resources at the
15 local level too. The ability of local governments to
16 represent the views of their citizens in the most
17 effective way in a very complicated regulatory framework
18 puts municipalities I think in the backseat, and they feel
19 uncomfortable in that regard.
20 So the bottom line is, you know, the
21 jurisdictional issues have been -- have been settled to a
6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 15 2 RE: COORDINATION AND COOPERATION 3 MARCH 2, 2006 4 5 1 great extent. Municipal officials have the promise and
2 the ability to represent their interests and the interests
3 of the people and businesses that live in their
4 communities before the Siting Council, but there’s a
5 distinct lack of resources. And because we have a
6 patchwork of 169 towns and cities in Connecticut, there’s
7 no cohesive ability on an organized level for
8 municipalities to bring their views and the resources that
9 are necessary to represent their interests before the
10 Siting Council. Thank you.
11 MR. TAIT: Thank you, Jim. I guess, Karl,
12 you’re next.
13 MR. KARL KILDUFF: We’ve had two dockets
14 in our community. One -- one went quickly and one was
15 rather protracted. The protracted one provided a lot of
16 opportunities for drives between North Branford and New
17 Britain and back to think about process and technology
18 beyond however the day went before the Siting Council.
19 The technology question, some of the
20 things seen earlier from T-Mobile is certainly exciting
21 when you can put a smaller box on a telephone pole, which
6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 16 2 RE: COORDINATION AND COOPERATION 3 MARCH 2, 2006 4 5 1 is more acceptable, rather than a neighborhood group
2 having an initial visceral reaction to the 150-foot tower.
3 Normally land use decisions are within the
4 purview of local government. The public is attenuated to
5 being able to go to their P&Z, their mayor, their town
6 council, their first selectman, to appeal for relief, and
7 it becomes problematic when trying to explain rules and
8 responsibilities for how the local government has a role,
9 but the Siting Council has a very different role as it
10 come to the location of these facilities.
11 Having dealt with directly on the
12 periphery of a number of utility issues, gas pipelines --
13 I sat through a presentation earlier this week on a
14 liquefied natural gas platform in Long Island Sound, plus
15 siting of cell towers. In both cases it raises the
16 question as to whether or not we ought to be looking at
17 things on an application-by-application basis or whether
18 there ought to be a more proactive big picture approach to
19 looking at where service gaps in the case of cellular
20 might be, and then more of a collaborative relationship
21 between the applicant and the municipality to identify
6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 17 2 RE: COORDINATION AND COOPERATION 3 MARCH 2, 2006 4 5 1 land areas where it might be more appropriate.
2 There may be needs for a regulatory
3 amendment to overcome policy issues by other property
4 owners that are in the public or quasi-public environment
5 where siting makes sense from RF mapping, but because they
6 have a policy decision, that policy decision precludes
7 that location. The resident puts an awful lot of burden
8 on the local government to be responsive and you have to
9 fight this thing tooth and nail. That creates odd
10 positions for elected officials. As an individual that is
11 appointed, it puts me on the receiving end of having to
12 deal with political officials saying we need to move this
13 -- we need to oppose this application.
14 If there is a longer period of time for that back and
15 forth, and as was presented during the T-Mobile
16 presentation that there is a sincere discussion and a
17 sincere dialogue so that the municipality can understand
18 the needs of the carrier and it gives the opportunity for
19 the carrier to understand the needs of the municipality,
20 the 60 days works fine as long as there is a true back and
21 forth. The true back and forth can help move dockets
6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 18 2 RE: COORDINATION AND COOPERATION 3 MARCH 2, 2006 4 5 1 forward where you can get feedback from the local
2 government to suggest sites, to suggest potential impacts
3 and how this thing is going to go. If you go to Site B,
4 you might have an easier go of it because at the local
5 level we can concur that Site B is perhaps the better
6 location. Of course that raises an issue as to whether or
7 not it provides adequate coverage, but at least that
8 proper back and forth, which is probably the spirit of the
9 60-day discussion can take place.
10 The proactive piece, be it the Siting
11 Council or others, becomes critical to being able to put
12 together that seamless reliable network rather than
13 fighting these things on a cell tower -- or cell site by
14 cell site application and where a vendor has to go to a
15 fall back position to put something in a preexisting
16 utility corridor because that will provide half of the
17 coverage of a different site. That collaboration back and
18 forth is really what gets down to being critical and
19 coming up with a coherent plan, which is -- if that’s the
20 ultimate goal of this symposium, is to have a coherent
21 direction of where we’re going for a seamless reliable
6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 19 2 RE: COORDINATION AND COOPERATION 3 MARCH 2, 2006 4 5 1 network, it requires everyone to be a partner, and if
2 that’s the Siting Council taking the leadership position
3 to identify potential coverage gaps, that would probably
4 be interesting for a start, if as Jim said you could back
5 and clean the chalk board and start from zero.
6 MR. TAIT: Thank you, Karl. Bill.
7 MR. BILL VOELKER: Good afternoon. Can
8 everybody hear? Yes? It’s nice to come into a room where
9 I meet half a dozen people who have cross-examined me once
10 or twice -- (laughter) -- at Siting Council hearings. And
11 incidentally, when -- I will tell you as a municipal
12 planner, when the Chairman of the Siting Council calls and
13 asks you if you’d be interested in coming, you readily say
14 absolutely -- (laughter) -- I’m happy to be here.
15 MR. TAIT: Absolutely.
16 MR. VOELKER: Yes. I’ve had the great
17 experience of working -- I work for Cheshire now, but have
18 only been there since November, so I haven’t had any
19 experience with cell sites there. But I had about 10
20 years in Simsbury and we worked very very well with the
21 Siting Council. And I hear you, Jim, talking about
6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 20 2 RE: COORDINATION AND COOPERATION 3 MARCH 2, 2006 4 5 1 municipalities, and I’m not sure we’re all victims. I
2 think -- it did take us a lot of work to have a
3 constructive relationship with the Siting Council to get
4 the information we needed in order to evaluate
5 applications in a constructive way, to have public input
6 and to get good results. And I’ll briefly review what we
7 were able to do. And of course I had the -- fortunate at
8 the time Derek’s predecessor was a friend of mine who I
9 went to graduate school with, so he was very good to me in
10 giving me some assistance there, but it’s a model that
11 does not take a lot of effort by municipalities no matter
12 what you may get.
13 The -- we called the Siting Council and
14 asked them for a map showing where we had gaps in our
15 coverage. It’s very easy to produce. And Derek will tell
16 everybody here that he’d be happy to get them for them,
17 all you have to do is call. But it’s true, we -- we
18 recently got them in Cheshire, thank you very much -- and
19 basically it’s an information base on where you have --
20 where you may expect the carriers, who are not necessarily
21 idiosyncratic but more market driven, and I certainly
6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 21 2 RE: COORDINATION AND COOPERATION 3 MARCH 2, 2006 4 5 1 appreciate and understand that part of it, where they’re
2 going to want service. What the -- what the map helps us
3 do from a municipal level is to look at alternate sites,
4 even ones that we may own some property that may be
5 revenue producing, and to -- and to have some constructive
6 dialogue about that.
7 What we did in Simsbury while I was town
8 planner there was we developed a set of wireless
9 telecommunication guidelines. We developed them at the
10 staff level in collaboration with the planning commission,
11 the zoning commission, our design review board, and the
12 board of selectmen. And we were able to do that fairly
13 quickly. And by the way, I’d be happy if CCM would want
14 me to come and address the municipalities to tell them --
15 this took a matter of hours, not weeks, not months to do.
16 And we got an endorsement by those groups with their
17 inputs. What we were able to do then was to use those
18 guidelines during the 60-day comment period -- which was a
19 true back and forth, we did have the applicants come in
20 and talk to us, they did submit -- we did have a dialogue
21 with them. We even had what we called public information
6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 22 2 RE: COORDINATION AND COOPERATION 3 MARCH 2, 2006 4 5 1 meetings. We didn’t call them public hearing because
2 attorneys in the room know that’s a term of art and you’re
3 really not enabled under the statute to have a public
4 hearing per say but have a public information meeting
5 where the applicants would come forward, make their -- and
6 we would invite all these boards and commissions and the
7 general public to come in, there would be an overview of
8 the application, the boards and commissions would take a
9 look at it to see to what extent it made sense in
10 accordance with their wireless telecommunication
11 guidelines, take a look at the maps that were provided to
12 us by the Siting Council, make an evaluation of the
13 proposal, and make a constructive recommendation to the
14 Siting Council.
15 Natalie, I think you’re right, the Siting
16 Council is very good listeners. And if you go in there
17 with good information, your comments based on a
18 constructive review of what you have, the Siting Council
19 will pay attention to that. If there are critical
20 resources, if there are scenic roads that you believe that
21 should be protected and you can suggest to the Siting
6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 23 2 RE: COORDINATION AND COOPERATION 3 MARCH 2, 2006 4 5 1 Council alternate sites or other ways to look at an
2 application, they will listen, they will listen.
3 It’s interesting, it was like six or eight
4 months later, after we had some success with the Siting
5 Council, somebody from another town called me up and said,
6 hey, I heard you were able to get wireless towers denied.
7 I said no you missed the point, that’s not what we do, we
8 were able to get the Siting Council to pay attention to
9 what we would like them to do based on good constructive
10 work. And I made a recommendation to somebody from
11 another municipality on how to do this. It’s not that
12 hard to have constructive dialogue with the Siting
13 Council. It’s not that hard for municipalities even if
14 they have a first selectman and a road crew to do the
15 work. The Siting Council is very very supportive of the
16 municipalities. The Siting Council recognizes the role
17 that we play. And I have found that process to be a very
18 very good process for us. And have felt that the people
19 who serve on that board, Colin among them, they want to
20 hear, they want to know what it is that the municipalities
21 want. And if we do our homework, which is not that hard
6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 24 2 RE: COORDINATION AND COOPERATION 3 MARCH 2, 2006 4 5 1 to do and we do it right, we can get good results.
2 MR. TAIT: Listening to our four
3 panelists, it seems to me -- two things occur to me. Is
4 there enough time for you to do this dialogue before they
5 come to us? Is the 60-day period too short, just right
6 because it doesn’t extend too long? Any comments that you
7 might have as to how we start the process? The Siting
8 Council would love to have it brokered before it even gets
9 to us. So we might be very interested in giving you more
10 time if you think it would be useful. Statutorily at this
11 point, we --
12 MS. KETCHAM: I do think it would be
13 useful, particularly because, as we discussed, very often
14 to bring information to the Siting Council we do need to
15 check with outside resources. We don’t have most of us on
16 staff ready and willing to drop everything to pick up this
17 particular issue. So it’s complicated and we do need to
18 have some time to develop the data to bring to you. So
19 either -- maybe a 90-day period or the opportunity for the
20 municipality to request an extension at the end of the 60
21 days I think would be helpful.
6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 25 2 RE: COORDINATION AND COOPERATION 3 MARCH 2, 2006 4 5 1 MR. TAIT: Jim.
2 MR. FINLEY: I would agree with what the
3 First Selectman just said.
4 MR. TAIT: The time is a problem to
5 municipalities --
6 MR. FINLEY: Yes --
7 MR. TAIT: -- so --
8 MR. FINLEY: Yeah. And I think -- you
9 know, there’s varying capacities at the local level to
10 deal with these issues. And as the First Selectman just
11 said, most communities do not have the in-house resources
12 and the time to deal with this within a 60-day time
13 period.
14 MR. TAIT: Okay. Karl.
15 MR. KILDUFF: I concur with what has been
16 stated already. It depends on the time when the
17 application comes in. The application could come in when
18 a municipality is in full blow budget preparation or
19 collective bargaining or any other issue that may pull
20 staff time and resources away from the project. So
21 additional time for true productive dialogue would
6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 26 2 RE: COORDINATION AND COOPERATION 3 MARCH 2, 2006 4 5 1 certainly be helpful in trying to mitigate issues before
2 the application gets in front of the Siting Council.
3 MR. TAIT: Or a chance to request more
4 time because it hits you at the wrong time or it’s a
5 particularly complicated application?
6 MR. KILDUFF: Either -- either mechanism.
7 MR. TAIT: Okay. Bill, any --
8 MR. VOELKER: Yeah. I’m not sure how the
9 General Assembly selected 60. Ninety days to me seems a
10 much more appropriate time period. Fortunately, I’ve been
11 lucky to be able to run hard and run fast in this 60-day
12 period, but 90 days would be good to do that. What’s
13 important in that context is that you who come to
14 municipalities, and I know you’re out there, and to do
15 these applications come early, come often, come before
16 you’re going to submit. Let us know when you’re coming in
17 -- come in, call us up, we want to hear, we want to know
18 what you’re going to do, give us time. You can jump start
19 that even with -- whether it becomes 60, 90, 120, or a
20 chance to ask for an extension, come to us, come as early
21 as you possibly can and let us know what your intentions
6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 27 2 RE: COORDINATION AND COOPERATION 3 MARCH 2, 2006 4 5 1 are --
2 MR. TAIT: Yes --
3 MR. VOELKER: -- and give us a chance to
4 --
5 MR. TAIT: -- you don’t need to wait, you
6 can come in earlier.
7 MR. VOELKER: Absolutely.
8 MR. TAIT: Yeah, okay.
9 MR. PHILIP ASHTON: Isn’t that in fact
10 what often happens, that they come in informally --
11 MR. VOELKER: Yes --
12 MR. ASHTON: -- and talk?
13 MR. VOELKER: In my experience, Phil --
14 MR. ASHTON: So the 60 days is really a
15 formal consultation --
16 MR. TAIT: But --
17 MR. ASHTON: -- the process actually goes
18 on longer than that, doesn’t it, in most cases?
19 MR. VOELKER: Yeah, I would say -- from my
20 experience -- when someone comes in, it gives me a chance
21 at the staff level to prepare the presentation that I’m
6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 28 2 RE: COORDINATION AND COOPERATION 3 MARCH 2, 2006 4 5 1 going to make to a board or commission about it. It gives
2 us a chance to make the phone calls. If I need more
3 information, I call Derek or someone else on his staff to
4 give us more information that we might need in order to
5 prepare ourselves for that formal process, that formal
6 timer period. It’s very helpful.
7 MR. TAIT: And the other --
8 MR. KILDUFF: I guess -- (inaudible) --
9 the shorter process that my community had experience with
10 was the applicant came in before it had picked up --
11 (inaudible) -- in the community. So that I was in a
12 position to know what was going on, I could answer the
13 elected official’s questions, in advance we could have a
14 back and forth before the 60-day clock started. That’s
15 not required. And it was incredibly helpful in that
16 process in order to articulate what the town’s position
17 was going to be and to mitigate some of those NIMBY
18 people, or whatever acronym you prefer, that come out
19 against these applications, that we at least had more of
20 that informal back and forth and an understanding
21 intimately of the project as opposed to getting something
6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 29 2 RE: COORDINATION AND COOPERATION 3 MARCH 2, 2006 4 5 1 cold and then you’ve got 60 days to respond.
2 MR. TAIT: The other thing that I see
3 developed here is development of alternatives and the
4 thought of some sort of statewide grid. One of the
5 problems is it depends upon a willing buyer and a willing
6 seller. So we can’t just say that’s the best place, you
7 folks can’t choose that’s the best place. Any suggestions
8 on how we might develop realistic practical alternatives
9 that will work?
10 MR. FINLEY: Well one thing that comes to
11 mind is -- I assume it’s within the Siting Council’s
12 ability on an advisory level to put out grids and to
13 perhaps think about some incentives to the industry to use
14 alternatives, whether it’s -- whether they’re financial or
15 other incentives that could be put out there so that
16 there’s a voluntary decision made, but that it meets, you
17 know, a mutually agreed upon public policy goal.
18 MR. ASHTON: Would one of you define what
19 you mean by the word grid?
20 MR. TAIT: I’d like to have Natalie -- it
21 looked like she wanted to --
6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 30 2 RE: COORDINATION AND COOPERATION 3 MARCH 2, 2006 4 5 1 MS. KETCHAM: It was your turn. Would you
2 like to --
3 MR. FINLEY: You know, basically not being
4 an expert on the subject, I -- you know, I will boldly go
5 where -- you know, where others fear to tread. What -- my
6 -- just -- intellectually I could view that there would be
7 grids or avenues where it might make sense to locate cell
8 towers if you could start it all over again, so that you
9 could -- you could reduce the proliferation, the number of
10 cell towers in order to maximize the efficiency of the
11 network instead of relying upon each industry’s gap in
12 service to dictate where they need to locate the next cell
13 tower.
14 MR. VOELKER: If I may on that point? I
15 wonder how you’re going to do that though. I mean --
16 knowing what I know about how to evaluate things on the
17 ground inside a municipality, I would guess that would be
18 an extremely difficult task for the Siting Council. As
19 much as you can take a map of the state and even do
20 coverage locations, you really don’t take into
21 consideration topography, visual barriers. It’s extremely
6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 31 2 RE: COORDINATION AND COOPERATION 3 MARCH 2, 2006 4 5 1 difficult to do that at that kind of a macro level. And I
2 -- I understand your point, but I -- I don’t think the
3 carriers would pay a whole lot of attention to it. I just
4 think it’s extremely difficult to do that effectively.
5 And I wonder what kind of staff -- I see my friend Dave
6 Martin out there, who works on the staff -- Dave, if
7 they’re going to do it, you know you’ve got a job for a
8 couple of years -- (laughter) -- but it would be hard to
9 do -- I mean extremely hard to do.
10 MR. TAIT: Well each of them have their
11 own different coverage things and so one grid doesn’t --
12 wouldn’t fit all.
13 One of the thoughts that has come to some
14 of us, and I think some of you mentioned it, some of the
15 state property, such as DOT property, is not open to
16 discussion. Is that something that we ought to urge the
17 legislature to address, at least it not being off bounds
18 for the companies to talk to?
19 MR. KILDUFF: Again, that may be -- there
20 may be that best site that exists there, but the property
21 is encumbered due to some other land use restriction that
6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 32 2 RE: COORDINATION AND COOPERATION 3 MARCH 2, 2006 4 5 1 the State stepped in and its DOT property, or there may be
2 an individual that sold the development rights on the
3 property, and is the placement of a cell tower in keeping
4 or out of keeping with development rights. And I guess
5 the battle that’s being discussed is whether or not a golf
6 course constitutes development rights. But those sorts of
7 options that could potentially exist expand the
8 opportunities for tower placement in areas that may be
9 beneficial to both the municipality and to the potential
10 landowner --
11 MR. TAIT: I was thinking that, you know,
12 there are lots of rights-of-way on the super highways that
13 may or may not be as suitable. And in your own towns
14 there will be some state property that might be -- but at
15 this point it’s not available --
16 MR. FINLEY: Yeah, I think that -- that’s
17 an idea that has some promise. I mean we have, you know,
18 the beginnings of a real land use policy debate going on
19 in Connecticut that involves transportation, it involves
20 the Connecticut Department of Transportation. And there
21 are many folks that feel that the Department of
6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 33 2 RE: COORDINATION AND COOPERATION 3 MARCH 2, 2006 4 5 1 Transportation has been a hindrance in looking at mass
2 transit and alternatives to roads and things of that
3 nature. And DOT wheels a lot of power politically and the
4 like in the State. And there is an ability I think there
5 for them to rethink and to have more of an openness to
6 using some of the vast tracts of land that they -- that
7 are under their control, and for Connecticut to develop,
8 you know, at sometime in the near future a more coherent
9 local, regional, and statewide land use plan for the State
10 of Connecticut. As opposed to many other states in the
11 south and the west, we don’t really have a coherent land
12 use policy in Connecticut. The State plan of conservation
13 and development is essentially the tool that is advisory
14 and really the only teeth in it is in a way that it
15 directs State investments, but it is not a statewide land
16 use tool.
17 MS. KETCHAM: And yes, I would just
18 concur. I think that certainly if we’re going to as a
19 State try to come to some solutions, all state agencies
20 should be at the table and be playing by the same rules.
21 MR. TAIT: Let me ask a loaded question --
6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 34 2 RE: COORDINATION AND COOPERATION 3 MARCH 2, 2006 4 5 1 my prerogative. To get the best site in your town, should
2 towns have the right of eminent domain to place cell
3 towers -- (laughter) -- would you welcome that power?
4 MR. VOELKER: It took -- it took 35
5 minutes for a key loaded decision to come out and I’d just
6 like to note that. I don’t know. I’d have the elected
7 official answer that one.
8 MS. KETCHAM: The buck stops here. No, I
9 do not believe that eminent domain would be suitable for
10 any -- even though it might be the best location. With
11 private enterprise that play here, I think negotiations
12 are a far better way to go.
13 MR. TAIT: I’m told there’s one last
14 question for you; is how can we do our job better than we
15 haven’t already discussed? Do we -- do we -- we’ve talked
16 about the time from which to get to the first application.
17 Any suggestions for the hearing process itself or anything
18 that we can take home with us?
19 MR. VOELKER: I would recommend in
20 addition to the extension of time, for the Siting Council
21 to be -- to work proactively with municipalities to make
6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 35 2 RE: COORDINATION AND COOPERATION 3 MARCH 2, 2006 4 5 1 us aware of how you can work constructively with us, the
2 kinds of information resources that are there. I know you
3 do your formal notices on the public hearings, but this --
4 I would say this session we’re having today is very very
5 valuable, and I wish more of my planning brethren here,
6 but this -- this outreach is -- I think is very very
7 important.
8 MS. KETCHAM: I would concur. And I would
9 suggest that perhaps the Siting Council could hold a
10 workshop maybe every two years after the elections because
11 certainly people change and newly elected municipal
12 officials have no idea about the Siting Council process
13 until you’re faced with it, and by then it’s too late. So
14 maybe to just hold a workshop, tell us what it’s all
15 about, and if we have some applications, how to best work
16 together would be helpful.
17 MR. TAIT: I found this very helpful to
18 the Siting Council. We’ll take your suggestions home with
19 us. I’m also told it’s starting to snow and to get myself
20 off this podium -- (laughter) -- thank you very much.
21 MR. VOELKER: Thanks for having us.
6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102 1 36 2 RE: COORDINATION AND COOPERATION 3 MARCH 2, 2006 4 5 1
2 (Presentation concluded)
6 7 8 POST REPORTING SERVICE 9 HAMDEN, CT (800) 262-4102