Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 December 19, 1996 • explained that APT will be co-locating on the Bridgewater Telephone tower in Monticello. Discussion followed regarding the costs associated with co-locating on two towers versus building a separate tower. Discussion followed regarding the range of the proposed tower and whether or not an additional tower will need to be constructed to provide coverage. Vice • Chair Anderson questioned whether or not APT expects marketing demands will require coverage in the northwest due to the expected residential growth in that area. Mr. Peterson of APT was not sure if an additional tower would be necessary. Commissioner Minton indicated he would like to see cost figures to support why APT does not feel it is economically feasible to co-locate on the two existing towers. Mr. Peterson summarized APT's reasons against co-location as follows: • Frequency interference and co-channel use interference issues make it very difficult to co-locate on two existing towers. • Economic - Construction and installation of one tower and foundation and is approximately$100,000. In addition, the cost of the radio equipment, antennas and feedlines is approximately$150,000, totaling approximately • $1/4 million. A lease for 24 years would total approximately$1/4 million. If there are two sites (co-location), there would be equipment costs of$150,000 for each site plus there would be two leases for co-location which would be more that a property lease. Mr. Peterson felt the cost would be equal to the cost of building a tower. Commissioner Tacheny questioned how it would cost more to lease space on someone else's tower than it costs to build a tower. Mr. Coyle stated more detailed information could be provided regarding costs. He noted that costs for leasing space on another tower is approaching $25,000 per year. He explained that companies cannot force other companies to co- locate on their towers. Commissioner Sullivan questioned what is APT's long range plan. Mr. Peterson explained APT has an agreement with RCC (Radio Communications Commission) to provide coverage statewide. Marketing and sales will dictate how far Commissioner Sullivan expressed concern there are other companies in this market who may be coming forward with requests for towers. Mr. Coyle explained AT&T and Cellular One, and APT and Sprint Wireless are the two "A" & "B" Block companies who have been awarded wireless franchises. He felt there may be only one other company which may try to serve this marketplace. Mr. • Coyle added that a "C" Block franchise has been awarded, as well as a