My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7.9. & 7.10. SR 02-18-1997
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
City Council
>
Council Agenda Packets
>
1993 - 1999
>
1997
>
02/18/1997 - SPECIAL
>
7.9. & 7.10. SR 02-18-1997
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/21/2008 8:32:45 AM
Creation date
7/25/2003 3:29:47 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
SR
date
2/18/1997
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
12 Planning December 1996 <br /> <br />An example of co-location, showing <br />several different services that can be <br />accommodated at different heights on <br />one tower. <br /> <br />public hearing and the actual vote on <br />approval. <br /> <br />Getting together <br />Local legislation should also include pro- <br />visions for co-location--the sharing of <br />facilities. Everyone seems to want co- <br /> <br /> location. Local governments like <br /> the idea because it reduces site <br /> proliferation, and industry likes <br /> it because construction and op- <br /> erating costs are reduced. There <br /> are some drawbacks, however. <br /> For one thing, co-location cre- <br /> ates larger sites. The more carri- <br /> ers sharing a facility, the bigger <br /> (and potentially more intrusive) <br /> it will be. Also, permit review <br /> time may increase dramatically, <br /> and the extra height of the facil- <br /> ity can push the application into <br /> a more stringent review category. <br /> Finally, established cellular car- <br /> riers may have reasonable con- <br /> cerns about revenue, operations, <br /> and liability when a new carrier <br /> is added to an exist- <br /> ing site. <br /> For local govern- <br /> ments seeking to <br /> make co-location an <br /> attractive option for <br /> wireless providers, <br /> I have three sugges- <br /> tions. <br /> First, provide in- <br />centives to co-locab <br />ing parties. Assure <br />the carriers that the <br />time needed to re- <br />view a co-location <br />request and the rules <br />involved will not <br />greatly exceed those <br />for a single applicant. <br />Second, consider giv- <br />ing the co-locators <br />access to municipal <br />property, speeding up per- <br />mit processing, perhaps even <br />lowering application fees. <br /> Third, take advantage of <br />the fact that local govern- <br />ment is the central clearing- <br />house for all permit applica- <br /> <br />tions. Use your regular annual meeting <br />with the cellular companies as an oppor- <br />tunity to register potential permit appli- <br />cants. Every time a permit is sought, the <br />registered parties could be informed and <br />invited to contact the applicant to discuss <br />sharing the facility. <br /> A final suggestion: Look to the future. <br />Ask industry representatives to share their <br />expectations of what's ahead in the way <br />of services, carriers, and concerns. <br /> <br />William Covington is land-use and environ- <br />mental policy counsel to AT&T Wireless Ser- <br />vices in Kirkland, Washington. He was for- <br />merly director of right-of-way permitting for <br />King County, Washington. <br /> <br /> The answer to the question on page 9. <br />:: , ::.: . <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.