Laserfiche WebLink
i~ <br />T~kRiver ~. <br />~~~unicipal Utilities <br />3?3 King Avenue <br />Elk River. SIN 55330 <br />June 3, 2002 <br />To: Elk River Municipal Utilities Commissio^ <br />James Tralle <br />John Dietz <br />George Zabee <br />From: Bryan C. Adams <br />Subject: Jackson Street Water Tower <br />phone: 763.441.2020 <br />Far 763.441.8099 <br />On May 21, 2002, I met with Pat Dwyer, Kurt Kragness of the Heritage Preservation <br />Commission, and Doug Derr representing Vertical Partners and a former resident of Elk River <br />concerning the future of the Jackson Street Water Tower. Doug Derr, through his company, <br />coordinated the installation of digital communication infrastructure between public and private <br />entities. This includes coordinating telecommunication antenna on structure like water tower. <br />In summary, the digital communication industry is expanding at an increasing rate and the need <br />for future antenna sites is also increasing. The events of September 11, 2001, has slowed this <br />industry but it is projected to pick up in the future. The use of the Jackson Street Water "Power as <br />abase for communication antennas is unknown at this time and it may take 6 months to 2 years <br />to explore this potential opportunity. The resulting revenue stream may or may not be sufficient <br />to pay for the continued maintenance of this structure. "I~he concept of placing antennas on a <br />water tower and compromising its historic value is also debatable. <br />Mr. John Alfords, the owner of the property directly east of this water tower, indicates he desires <br />to start his redevelopment project this summer. The residence will be demolished in late summer <br />with new construction taking place early 2003. <br />The Heritage Preservation Commission is looking at the Elk River Municipal Utilities (ERMU) <br />to take the risk and pursue the opportunity of potential antenna rental space to provide the <br />necessary revenue to save this "historic" water tower. I indicated the Utility Commission makes <br />the ultimate decision, but from my perspective this is a financial decision. It is more economical <br />to remove the structure than maintain it, less liability from both property damage or personal <br />injury from someone climbing it and falling off. Also by removing this structure, a 100' x 100' <br />lot becomes available for redevelopment. If some other entity desires to pursue this opportunity <br />