OFFICE OF
THE CITY COUNCIL
117 WEST DUVAL STREET, SUITE 425
4TH FLOOR, CITY HALL
JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA 32202
904-630-1377
JOINT
LUZ AND TEU WORKSHOP MEETING MINUTES
SMALL
CELL WIRELESS REGULATION
City
Council Chamber, 1st floor, City Hall
June
21, 2018
11:00
a.m.
Location: City Council
Chamber, City Hall – St. James Building, 117 West Duval Street
In attendance:
Council Members Lori Boyer (Chair), Matt Schellenberg, Joyce Morgan, Aaron
Bowman, Jim Love, John Crescimbeni, Doyle Carter, Tommy Hazouri (arr. 11:12)
Excused: Council Members Al
Ferraro, Aaron Bowman
Also: Paige Johnston and Jason Teal – Office of General
Counsel; Trista Carraher – Council Auditor’s Office; Staci Lopez and Crystal
Shemwell – Legislative Services Division
Meeting Convened:
11:00 a.m.
Council Member Lori Boyer called the meeting to order and the
attendees introduced themselves for the record. Staff distributed a compilation
of comments received on the draft legislation from wireless providers, tower
companies and the JEA. Ms. Boyer said that she had asked Jason Teal of the
General Counsel’s Office to review those comments, make whatever
grammatical/non-substantive changes were requested to the draft and list other
proposed changes that required policy decisions.
Mr. Teal conducted a review of the various proposed changes, grouped
into categories and identified by the companies making the proposal. Chairwoman
Boyer asked Mr. Teal to focus on the items needing committee discussion and
decisions.
·
Comcast requested clarification language in
the ordinance distinguishing wireline providers (who attach small devices to
existing utility wires) from wireless providers.
·
Clarification was requested about who would be
the initiator of requests to install wireless equipment on JEA poles – JEA or
the wireless carrier. JEA proposed that an application first be filed with
them, reviewed and approved, and then forwarded to the City for its review.
·
Several providers questioned the City’s
authority to restrict the size of small wireless facility equipment that can be
pole-mounted versus placed on the ground; they contend that the Florida Statute
authorizes 28 cu.ft. of cumulative equipment and does not give local
governments the right to determine placement. Mr. Teal countered that the
statute also does not prohibit local governments from doing so, so there is a
grey area about local control in this regard. He said that objective design
guidelines are clearly permitted, so he is comfortable recommending that size
and placement be regulated under that authority on aesthetic and safety grounds.
Chairwoman Boyer reviewed the current size and placement language in the draft
ordinance. Council Members Schellenberg and Bowman advocated for 10 cu. ft.
mounted on the pole rather than the 4 cu. ft. in the draft to make the playing
field level for all potential providers and encourage rapid implementation of
5G service. Council Member Crescimbeni advocated for the 4 cu. ft. limit for
equipment on the poles and the use of underground cabinets for the rest of the
equipment, noting that new utilities (electric, telephone, cable television)
are all being placed underground in Jacksonville seemingly without problems. By
show of hands a majority of the committee voted to instruct Mr. Teal to draft
an amendment to the bill to provide for 10 cu. ft. of equipment mounted on the
pole. Alicia Grant, President of Scenic Jacksonville, advocated for
undergrounding of all utilities and said that the more and larger equipment
that is pole-mounted will be a visual blight on the community. She advocated
for keeping the 4 cu. ft. limit currently in the ordinance. She said that more
and more utilities are being placed underground across Florida.
·
There is an inconsistency between the
ordinance and the design standards about whether these facilities are allowed
on pre-existing privately owned utility poles in the public right-of-way. Ms.
Boyer asked staff to research whether/where there are private utility poles in
the public right-of-way and of what sort to inform a discussion of this issue
at a future meeting.
·
The 2018 Florida Legislature amended the small
wireless communication facilities law to restrict local governments’ ability to
charge fees and taxes on communications providers, specifically prohibiting the
charging of a security fee. Mr. Teal said that the term is not defined,
however, but seems to be a basic entrance charge levied to permit any use of a
public right-of-way. The City’s proposed $25,000 security fee per pole would
instead be for the purpose of paying to remove facilities/equipment abandoned
by an owner and left in the public right-of-way. He recommended changing the
name for clarity to a “surety fee” to distinguish it as an indemnity fee rather
than an entry fee and recommended removing the option for a cash deposit with
the City and retaining the letter of credit or performance bond options for
meeting that fee requirement to comply with the state’s prohibition on
requiring providers to make payments to the local government. Council Member
Schellenberg adamantly opposed an unreasonable fee that will drive providers
away from serving Jacksonville. Council Member Crescimbeni said that letters of
credit are inherently unreliable because they can be revoked. Council Member
Morgan suggested a blanket citywide surety fee for each carrier rather than
individual pole fees.
·
The criteria for the City approving
installation of new poles because existing poles are “not reasonably feasible” for
co-location to provide the service are vague and need clarification about
criteria to be considered (safety, aesthetics, financial, technological). In
response to a question from Chairwoman Boyer about whether the committees
wanted to back off from the initial draft’s expressed preference for
co-location on existing poles, the consensus of the group was to minimize the
number of new poles by continuing to emphasize co-location. Council Member
Crescimbeni said the City is ill-equipped to make a feasibility determination
for wireless facility locations and recommended that a distance limitation
between poles might be a better option. Ms. Boyer said that she will work with
Mr. Teal on more clear and defensible standards for the next meeting.
·
Underground v. above ground facilities: Ms. Boyer
said that the earlier decision to allow up to 10 cu. ft. of equipment to be
pole-mounted, in addition to the provisions allowing equipment within an
architectural base of new poles, should eliminate the need for underground
facilities.
Chapter 656 (Zoning Code) changes: Planning and Development Director
Bill Killingsworth discussed regulation of facilities on private property
versus public rights-of-way. He said that he received comments and proposals
from one company requesting: 1) reduced separation requirements (existing or
proposed) for towers; 2) reduced co-location requirements; 3) shortened review
periods for applications; 4) reduced setback requirements; 5) weakened data
submission requirements; 6) adding authorization to locate antennas on
single-family residences; 7) requirement for the City (rather than the
applicant) to pay the fee for contractual consultant expertise in application
review process. Mr. Killingsworth said that there were several proposals for
less substantive changes that might be acceptable (i.e. batching applications),
but by and large he felt the proposals defeated the intent that he understood
the committee charged him with crafting language to implement the beginning of
this process. He said that he would meet with Jason Teal to discuss acceptable
changes and craft a new draft of the ordinance for the next meeting. Ms. Boyer
asked Mr. Killingsworth to provide a “white paper” with the next draft of the
ordinance explaining the rationale for the proposed changes.
Ms. Boyer said that she envisions that 2017-863 as currently
substituted (on June 12th) will be up for consideration in committees the week
of July 15th, with Mr. Teal’s proposed amendments to that version.
If approved in committee it could be before City Council on July 23rd.
The zoning amendments will be in a separate bill that will be drafted over the
Council summer break to be introduced on July 23rd for consideration
in August. All proposed changes should be directed to Mr. Teal or Mr.
Killingsworth for drafting.
Public comment
None
Meeting adjourned: 12:10 p.m.
The written minutes of this
meeting are only an overview of what was discussed. The following items have
been submitted for the public record.
Please contact Legislative Services for these items.
Minutes: Jeff Clements, Council Research
06.21.18 Posted 5:30 p.m.
Tapes: Joint LUZ and TEU Special
Committee Meeting – LSD
06.21.18
Handouts: Joint LUZ and TEU Special Committee Meeting
06.21.18