06/19/2007 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Minutes of 6/19/2007 answered that, of course, the city cares about the issue of health. Under the federal law, the city is not permitted to give consideration to that. We do have experts available through the law firm of Walter & Haverfield, and the questions can be presented to them. Law Director Dubelko asked Mrs. Puinno to give him the information she has, and he will talk to our outside counsel on telecommunications legal matters to see whether or not there is some merit to that. 4) Doug Klimkowicz, 5777 Barton Road, neither he nor his company will benefit from the cell tower. He is an engineer working for a GF technical company and at one time worked for a cellular carrier. Under his direction, several thousand cellular towers were built and he understands exactly what they do and what can be done with them. He has been deposed as an expert witness. He understands concerns by fellow residents, but mostly they are unfounded. The RF radiation that emanates from a tower such as this at 100 feet will be less than what is received from the digital readout on the clock on a night stand. You receive 10,000 times more RF radiation from a computer screen. Regarding the unsightliness of towers, many things can be done with such towers. A flag pole can be used and none of the residents will have to see it if it is placed to the west and south of the building. This tower could also be used for a platform for our own 800 megahertz emergency communication system. It will provide additional revenue of approximately $40,000 to the city. T-Mobile can sue the city right now, and they can get that tower placed there. The choice belongs to the city. It can retain control of the situation, or it can give control to the courts and federal government. The right thing to do is take control over this and place the tower. In the event this tower is turned down, he is volunteering his backyard to T-Mobile for the tower. 5) Cindy Phelps, 5812 Elmhurst Road, has previously addressed the cell tower. She understands and the neighborhood understands the cell tower is going to go up somewhere within the city. The point she is making is the fire station was built behind their property. Property values have taken a hit. They do not mind taking a hit for the community, but they do resent the fact they are being asked to take a hit for the second time. No one can state they honestly know property values will not depreciate once again once the tower goes up in their backyards. Put the tower up, just not in their backyards. There has to be an alternative. They understand health issues cannot be discussed, but they are concerned about them. They should not have to suffer the loss of property values twice. On another matter, she wondered if anything is going to be done about the Middle School. Councilman Barker and Mayor O'Grady explained that was a school issue which should be taken up with the School Board and School Superintendent. The schools and the city are separate governments. 6) Gene Joyce, 5842 Elmhurst Road, said he had gone through a lot of studies on cell towers and he is against it. Regarding another issue, he wondered who he could talk to about mounding/buffering on the fire station site to shield the homes from lights and noise. Councilman Gareau said he the issue of mounding was addressed as to feasibility. The mounding requires a rise overrun-the standard is 3 feet out for a foot up per side. To achieve a one foot mound, you might be talking about 6 feet of total altered area. As it goes higher and higher, it moves out and the effect it would have had on existing 13