Title/Name/Summary
General Policy for Co-Locating Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF) on Village-Owned Property
History
On November 23, 2009, the Development Services and Planning Committee of Trustees discussed the wireless communication facility co-location policy for Village infrastructure. At that meeting, the Committee requested additional information before making a recommendation. The Committee requested that staff find the capital value of private wireless communication facility lease rates in the Orland Park area in order to compare with proposed/ area municipal rates and bring the suggested base lease rate for Orland Park’s infrastructure closer in line with the overall market rate. The policy was continued to the January 25, 2010 Committee meeting.
On January 25, 2010, the Development Services and Planning Committee of Trustees moved 2-0 to recommend to the Village Board to approve the policies outlined in this report titled “Co-Locations on Village Land in ComEd Transmission Towers”, “General Policy for Co-Locating Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF) on Village Property”, and “Water Tower Co-Location Planning Criteria”, prepared by the Development Services Department, dated January 25, 2010 and as discussed and amended by the Committee.
At the meeting the Committee of Trustees discussed the wireless communication facility co-location policy for Village infrastructure. The discussion largely centered on balancing an appropriate monthly fee or price for wireless communication companies to pay the Village when they co-locate on Village infrastructure (e.g. water towers, buildings, lattice towers etc.).
The report to the Committee initially indicated $3,500 per month with an annual escalator of 4% each year for the first 10 years and 5% each year thereafter. This model was based on research conducted by the American Planning Association’s Planning Advisory Service, the Village of Glen Ellyn and the Village of Orland Park. The model largely copied the one used by the Village of Hoffman Estates and the Village of Downers Grove.
The Committee of Trustees found, however, that a more appropriate balance between what was being proposed and what current Village rates suggest ($2,200 - $2,400 per month with a 3% annual escalator) was $3,000 per month with a 3% annual escalator. This is a $500 increase per month over what was proposed at the November 23, 2009 Committee of Trustees meeting ($2,500).
Testimony was provided by representatives from Verizon Inc. that seek to co-locate wireless communication equipment on the Park Station Boulevard Water Tower (Number 8). They were in favor of reducing the price from $3,500 to $3,000 with a 3% annual escalator versus the 4% and 5% initially proposed.
Based on the information in this research and the 34 communities that were surveyed, the average base lease rate for co-locations on publicly owned infrastructure is approximately $2,219.29/ month. The average annual escalator is approximately 3.42%. Under the proposed new policy, Orland Park’s base lease rate will be $780.71 more than that average in 2010. Orland Park’s annual escalator will be .42% less than that average.
Following this cover sheet is the revised policy (per the recommendations of the Committee) that outlines the findings in response to the Committee’s requests and the Committee’s recommendations.
This policy is now before the Village Board of Trustees for final review.
Recommended Action/Motion
I move to approve the policies titled “Co-Locations on Village Land in ComEd Transmission Towers”, “General Policy for Co-Locating Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF) on Village Property”, and “Water Tower Co-Location Planning Criteria”, prepared by the Development Services Department and as recommended by the Development Services and Planning Committee of Trustees dated February 1, 2010 and as referenced below.
THIS SECTION FOR REFERENCE - REVISED POLICY REPORT FROM THE COMMITEE
ATTACHMENTS
Inventory of Village Water Towers
Base Lease Rate Research
INTRODUCTION
This report outlines the four types of WCF co-location projects that may occur on Village property and the appropriate fee and rate structures for such projects.
The objective of this report is to:
1. Establish a General Policy for Co-Locating WCFs on Village Property based on substantial research;
2. Identify and discuss the four types of WCF co-location projects that may occur on Village property;
3. Establish Water Tower Co-Location Planning Criteria; and
4. Make recommendations for constructing for-profit private buildings on public land.
DEFINITIONS
Wireless Communication Facility (WCF)
A WCF can be monopole towers, existing lattice towers, attached or “extension” monopoles, and stealth equipment, or a combination thereof and their associated ground equipment enclosures or shelters. Attached or extension monopoles can be co-located on top of buildings, water towers, or existing monopoles to further increase height. (They can essentially be installed on tall objects including park field lights or similar infrastructure). Stealth communication equipment is comparatively small radius local communication facilities co-located on top of buildings but without monopole attachments or extensions-- thus “stealth” because they blend with regular rooftop equipment.
WCF Special Use
To build new WCFs or to build new equipment shelters/ (telephone service) utility substations, the Village requires a special use permit and, in the case of new towers, conformity to residential land use proximity regulations in Section 6-311 of the Land Development Code. This means that to build a new tower, a provider would have to comply with the public hearing process and ensure that the tower is not within 500 feet of any residential building-even if it is built on Village land. Or, to build a new wireless communication equipment shelter or building, a provider must comply with the public hearing process. In such a case, the special use process would dictate the requirements for approval/denial of a project.
WCF Administrative/ Appearance Review
The administrative appearance review process is required for WCF co-location projects and existing infrastructure because it facilitates swift equipment deployment for providers. This is an incentive that gives providers the opportunity to avoid new construction costs and the public hearing process.
As a result, co-location projects reduce the amount of new monopole towers constructed and their visual impacts for the community.
GENERAL POLICY FOR CO-LOCATING WCFs ON VILLAGE PROPERTY
In lieu of multiple wireless communication petitions requesting co-location privileges on Village owned property (i.e. water towers) the following policy is recommended for the Village of Orland Park to adopt in order to systematically review, improve, process and maintain wireless communication facilities.
General Policy for Co-Locating WCFs on Village Property
1. Screening Requirement. Ground equipment cabinet enclosures shall be screened using a 100% solid opaque fence of either masonry or non-white vinyl fence. The ground equipment enclosure shall be further screened by native landscaping that is low cost, low-maintenance. The wireless communication providers co-located onsite shall be responsible for landscaping maintenance.
2. Tree Mitigation Bank. Where screening by native landscaping cannot be accommodated, the provider shall pay $2,500.00 to the Village of Orland Park Tree Mitigation Bank in lieu of the required landscaping. The funds shall be used by the Village to plant or maintain trees in Village parkways, parks, open lands, and other public lands and facilities in the same impact fee districts as the project.
3. Ground Equipment Shelter. Special use permits for ground equipment shelters or buildings shall require a masonry building designed similar to existing Village-owned utility substations or pump housing facilities. The shelter shall be screened by native landscaping;
4. Multi-Tenancy. The provider must provide an assessment for multiple tenants or co-locations and determine if other carriers or providers can fit/ co-locate on the infrastructure following their installation per Section 6-311 regulations. If more co-locations can fit, they must build the ground equipment enclosure or shelter to accommodate at least one future additional tenant;
5. Maintenance Fee and Site Access. The provider must pay a one-time site maintenance or impact fee of $2,000.00 for impacts to utilities, roads, towers, screening and other infrastructure and services on public property. Site access to masonry shelters or ground equipment enclosures shall be controlled by the Department with jurisdiction (Building Maintenance or Public Works). No new road access to such sites shall be allowed, since it is typically not necessary for providers to need vehicles for site maintenance. In addition, any new paths or sidewalks for site access shall be subject to the Department with jurisdiction (Building Maintenance or Public Works).
6. Compensation. Compensation to the Village of Orland Park for the use of Village-owned infrastructure and facilities shall follow the below fee schedule. The compensation base lease rate shall begin in 2010 as $3,000.00 per month and shall escalate annually by 3%. Compensation payments shall be made quarterly. Each provider shall pay its own fee. All providers with new co-location petitions shall pay the same base rate per year as determined by the below fee table, which outlines the payment schedule until 2024.
3% Annual Escalator.
Year 1 - 2010 - $3,000.00 per month;
Year 2 - 2011 - $3,090.00 per month;
Year 3 - 2012 - $3,182.70 per month;
Year 4 - 2013 - $3,278.18 per month;
Year 5 - 2014 - $3,376.53 per month;
Year 6 - 2015 - $3,477.82 per month;
Year 7 - 2016 - $3,582.16 per month;
Year 8 - 2017 - $3,689.62 per month;
Year 9 - 2018 - $3,800.31 per month;
Year 10 - 2019 - $3,914.32 per month;
Year 11 - 2020 - $4,031.75 per month;
Year 12 - 2021 - $4,152.70 per month;
Year 13 - 2022 - $4,277.28 per month;
Year 14 - 2023 - $4,405.60 per month;
Year 15 - 2024 - $4,537.77 per month;
BASE LEASE RATE RESEARCH
Research for the above policy recommendations was assisted by the American Planning Association’s Planning Advisory Service (PAS). PAS surveyed Chicago area municipalities to determine what co-location lease rates exist around the region. The attached information marked by (PAS) was collected by PAS. Information marked by (VGE) was collected by the Village of Glen Ellyn, which shared their research with PAS, and thus Orland Park. Information marked by (VOP) was collected by staff.
(See attached Base Lease Rate Research for more information).
The old Orland Park policy was to treat each co-location on a case by case basis and charge a starting lease rate of approximately $2,200/ month with a 3% annual escalator (2004) for each carrier/ provider. The proposed new policy sets a new course using a base lease rate starting at $3,000/ month for all carriers and providers in 2010 with a 3% annual escalator. This means that all new lessees will be paying the same rate within a given year. The lessees will be required to pay the Village on a quarterly basis, allowing the Village to collect $9,000 each quarter in 2010 from potential lessees.
Orland Park’s New Policy v. Old Policy
Based on the information in this research and the 34 communities that were surveyed, the average base lease rate for co-locations on publicly owned infrastructure is approximately $2,219.29/ month. The average annual escalator is approximately 3.42%. Under the proposed new policy, Orland Park’s base lease rate will be $780.71 more than that average in 2010. Orland Park’s annual escalator will be .42% less than that average.
IDENTIFICATION AND DISCUSSION OF CO-LOCATIONS ON VILLAGE PROPERTIES
There are four types of sites owned by the Village of Orland Park on which wireless communication providers (providers) can co-locate their wireless communication facility (WCF).
A. ComEd transmission towers on Village land;
B. Village buildings;
C. Village WCFs; and
D. Village Water Towers.
A. Co-Locations in ComEd Transmission Towers on Village Land
The Village supports co-locations on all existing infrastructure. In the case of ComEd transmission towers, however, there are some in ComEd easements which run across Village-owned open lands, parks, greenways and other similar land uses. In the instances where ComEd easements and transmission towers exist on Village-owned land, co-locations are currently not permitted due to Open Lands district zoning restrictions.
The following are policy recommendations for co-locations on Village-owned land in ComEd transmission towers:
1. Land Development Code. Amend the Land Development Code to allow WCF co-locations in ComEd transmission towers on Village land via an administrative/ appearance review and to allow via a special use (telephone service) utility substations associated with co-locations in ComEd transmission towers on publicly owned land (Section 6-213.B.6);
2. Follow General Policy. Require providers to follow the General Policy for Co-Locating WCFs on Village Property outlined in this report;
3. Two Party Lease. When a co-location is proposed in a ComEd transmission tower on Village-land (e.g. Open Lands), the providers will lease the tower space from ComEd for the monopole and then lease the ground space from the Village for the ground equipment enclosure/ shelter. The lease-rate between the Village and the provider should be based on the Village land needed for the supporting ground equipment and associated enclosures and screening.
In the case of Open Lands, co-locations would only be permitted when a ComEd transmission tower is existing. Three party lease deals (e.g. between ComEd, the Village and the provider) are difficult to negotiate from the perspective of the wireless industry. In ComEd co-locations on Village land, the Village should establish a lease for the land area of the equipment enclosure/ shelter, since the tower itself will be located in existing ComEd infrastructure, but the enclosure will use Village land.
B & C. Co-Locations on Village Buildings and WCFs
The potential exists for providers to co-locate WCFs on a Village building. Co-locations to Village buildings can be accomplished via attached monopoles per Section 6-311 regulations or via stealth equipment. Upcoming Land Development Code amendments propose limiting the extended height to fifteen (15’) feet above the building or structure. Village WCFs include facilities like the existing lattice tower at the Old Police Headquarters. Currently, this is the only freestanding Village WCF.
In cases where co-locations can occur on Village buildings and Village WCFs, the General Policy outlined in this report should be followed.
D. Co-Locations on Village Water Towers
Wireless communication providers and carriers have already petitioned the Village on numerous occasions to co-locate WCFs on Village water towers. Co-locations on Village water towers typically involve antennae equipment at the top of the bulb with several thick cables running down the personnel access shaft of the tower to the ground equipment. Each water tower is organized and built differently. In some cases, WCF ground equipment can be housed in the base of the tower; in most cases the ground equipment is located outside the base due to internal spatial constraints, requiring penetrations to the base to provide cable access to the stem and bulb of the tower. Penetrations must be strategically located for proper coordination with other existing facilities in operation on and around the towers.
Water tower co-locations involve meticulous site planning to avoid underground utilities such as storm sewers and water mains, and water tower “over land flow fields” (explanation to follow). WCF ground equipment cable lines must be able to access water tower bases without crossing these utilities or impacting water tower operations. Water towers release large amounts of excess water into “over land flow fields” at the base of the tower to relieve system pressure. Building in these areas is not possible without sustaining flooding or other water damage from water tower operations. Following successful access to the tower, cable lines must not limit or prohibit tower crews from maintaining or accessing the tower’s bulb and top. Multiple co-locations can result in multiple thick cables (up to 30 or more separate cable lines in some cases) which can restrict access and maintenance, and create unsafe working conditions for crews, impeding safety harness operation due to numerous brackets and hangers for said cable bundles.
In cases of water tower co-locations, the following is recommended:
1. Water Tower Co-Location Planning Criteria. Public officials shall use the planning criteria below to approve or deny water tower co-location petitions. If a project fails to meet at least one criterion, it shall be denied.
2. Follow General Policy. Water tower co-locations that meet all the planning criteria, must require providers to follow the General Policy for Co-Locating WCFs on Village Property outlined in this report;
It should be noted that in some instances, denial of a co-location on a Village water tower may result in a wireless communication provider to propose the construction of a new WCF that will likely include a new monopole. This situation, however, would be regulated through the special use process.
WATER TOWER CO-LOCATION PLANNING CRITERIA
In order to regulate water tower co-locations, the Public Works Department has compiled an inventory of Village water towers to determine potential site planning and co-location capacity. The Village will use the inventory in conjunction with the following four planning criteria to determine if a co-location and/or building a wireless communication shelter is feasible or appropriate for each water tower site.
1. The installation of underground coaxial and other cables must be at least five (5’) feet from water mains, sanitary sewers or storm sewer lines onsite;
2. The construction of buildings/ shelters or cabinet equipment cannot be sited in areas needed for overflow management (water tower “overflow fields” and overflow valves) or site maintenance;
3. WCF buildings/ shelters or cabinet equipment must be appropriately sited outside of the water tower drip line but near acceptable base penetration areas, which are areas along the base perimeter that are clear of internal existing water tower infrastructure; (The farther cables must travel, the thicker they must be, which impacts tower operations and maintenance);
4. Public Works must determine that wireless communication cable conditions in each water tower are safe for crews and maintain a comfortable access-way to the bulb and top of the water tower; Cable lines that impede safe crew access shall not be permitted.
CONSTRUCTING PRIVATE FOR-PROFIT BUILDINGS ON PUBLIC LAND
The Orland Fire Protection District and the School Districts in Orland Park have built private WCF buildings or shelters on public land. These public agencies have allowed WCFs to co-locate on their buildings and towers and have managed to maintain their facilities. They have also allowed equipment shelters to be constructed on their land. The appearance of these shelters is the basic “brown box” common to many WCF installations.
The Village currently does not have a policy for building such for-profit structures on Village-owned land. Other municipalities in the region allow such shelters to be constructed on municipal property. In the case of Orland Park, providers that request equipment shelters are required to move through the special use process because the facilities are considered telephone service utility substations. In most zoning districts such facilities are permitted via the special use.
It is recommended that the Village permit these shelters to be constructed on Village-owned land based on the strict guidelines of the General Policy for Co-Locating WCFs on Village Property outlined earlier in this report and the special use status-which provides greater control over design and development. The masonry requirement will ensure that these private utility substations will match Village-operated pump housing stations and utility substations that are scattered on public property throughout the Village’s service areas. In the OL district, it is recommended they be permitted only when associated with a ComEd transmission tower co-location.
While the standard “brown box” equipment shelter is temporary and removable, the masonry utility substation is more permanent. The advantage to a masonry structure is that they will preserve the aesthetic appearances of neighborhoods and Village-owned property.