News & Articles

I. A brief history of cell phone towers in Duluth

In the late 1990s, as wireless technology improved and cell phone use became widespread, the city of Duluth began to see a proliferation of cell phone antennas within its borders. Many were located on city property, which generated some revenue for the city. An antenna on the Woodland water tower, for instance, a popular site for many companies, earned the city $16,200 in annual rent in 1998.
Many antennas were placed atop new towers specifically built for that purpose. Some were approved with little controversy; others encountered resistance. In 1998, a proposal by Wireless North to build a new tower on the Lester Park golf course brought out citizens in force to oppose it. Some thought the tower would be ugly and intrusive; others were worried about the possible harmful health effects caused by the radiation emitted by the antenna.  City code had nothing to say on the matter. City councilors eventually turned down the proposal.
In 2001, city code was amended to establish standards for cell towers. The guidelines stated, among other things, that new towers should “minimize visual impact” and that antennas should be placed on existing structures, rather than new towers, whenever possible.
Periodically, new controversies arose. In 2010, the city rewrote the entire section of city code relating to cell phone towers. Consisting of more than 30 pages of standards and requirements, the new code was much more comprehensive than the changes made in 2001. The new requirements listed a hierarchy of priorities that companies had to go through when considering where to locate new antennas. The highest priority was “On existing towers or other structures on city owned property.” This was followed by “On existing towers or other structures on other property in the city” and, third, on “A new tower on city owned property.” That is, if an applicant wished to build a tower on private property, they would first have to prove that no city property was suitable for their needs.
In 2013, the city hired the firm of Bench Strength Partners, Inc., (BSP) to renegotiate the city’s leases with cell phone companies. Under the terms of the agreement, BSP would earn a percentage of however much the contracts increased. The first lease they renegotiated was with Cingular Wireless, which had an antenna on the Woodland water tower. BSP succeeded in getting Cingular’s annual rent raised from $23,400 to $57,200.
On July 21, 2014, the city council established a special “Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund,” where antenna lease revenues would be pooled. Chief Administrative Officer Dave Montgomery explained to councilors that the city was expecting those revenues to increase substantially with BSP, as expiring leases were renegotiated.
The council approved two such leases that same day. One was a ten-year lease for a Woodland water tower antenna, with Northern PCS Services, for $906,754—an increase of 257 percent over the old lease. The other was a ten-year, $552,559 lease with Sprint for a pole in Chester Park—an increase of 492 percent over the previous terms.
Clearly, there was money to be made in antennas.

II. Chester Park

On September 9, 2014, at the regular monthly meeting of the Duluth Planning Commission, commissioners found an item on their agenda asking them to approve a special use permit for Sprint to build a new 75-foot cell phone tower in Chester Park. For years, Sprint had had their antenna on top of the Big Chester ski jump, but the aging ski jump had been torn down in August. Sprint had erected a temporary wooden pole near the same location, but they wanted to replace it with a permanent steel pole.
Senior City Planner Steven Robertson explained to commissioners that city staff and Sprint representatives had been studying the issue for two and a half years, ever since plans to tear down the ski jump had begun. As a result of all that planning and study, city staff recommended that Sprint be allowed to build a permanent steel pole, not where the temporary pole was now, but 350 feet to the west, right next to Chester Park’s downhill ski runs. The reason for this, Robertson said, was so the city could get a “dual use” from the structure: The proposed pole would have lights attached to it to illuminate that portion of the ski hill. “The city council is okay with this,” said Robertson, citing the council’s July approval of Sprint’s lease.
To me, a layman, the new proposed location seemed a little strange. The current, temporary pole was hidden among the trees, and was out of the way of the park’s most heavily traveled trails. The new proposed location, next to a ski run, stuck out, and included a fence around it that skiers--especially beginning skiers, to whom Chester Park caters—could easily run into. The explanation that the new pole would provide lighting seemed odd, because the ski hill already had lighting. Initially, I thought that perhaps the new location would provide Sprint with better coverage, but Sprint’s representative, Steve Stulz, dispelled that idea.
“This is not a site that Sprint picked,” Stulz told commissioners. “Actually, we had a couple of other sites that the city vetoed, and they directed us specifically to this site. So that’s kind of how we arrived at that.”
Stulz stressed the immense amount of work that had gone into the project. “We’ve worked extensively with zoning,” he said. “[The city’s telecom code] is a very exhaustive code that we need to meet in order to do any type of a cell site. Mr. Robertson has also worked extensively with the city’s telecommunications consultant. We’ve walked the site multiple times. We’ve also worked with Joe Miller over at the city, who handles all the city properties. We’ve worked in conjunction with the Parks Department. We’ve gone back and forth with the city now for many, many, many months to get to this location, and we believe that this location best serves the city and also meets Sprint’s needs.”
Stulz also reiterated Mr. Robertson’s statement with regard to the city council. “The city council has approved a lease with this location as part of that lease package. The city council has approved that lease, it’s been executed and agreed upon, and that’s how we came to this [location] also.”
Commissioners seemed skeptical. Commissioner Drew Digby said, “You said Parks Department, but is there anyone in particular in the Parks Department you worked with on this? I guess that’s my real concern. If the Parks Commission was here saying, ‘Yes, this is a great spot,’ I’d have a lot less trouble, but it seems like this was done by city property folks rather than Parks.”
Stulz replied, “Kathy Bergen is the [person] that we’ve been working with through the Parks Department. My understanding is she’s the head of this particular area. We’ve also site-walked it with the manager of the park and the chalet, who handles all the skiing stuff. And so everybody and anybody involved in this issue has been involved in this project to date. Like I say, we’ve been working on this for two and a half years. Everybody knows about the situation. If there were issues, they would be here on behalf of the city.”
Several members of the public had showed up to speak. All were opposed to the new location of the tower. Some were opposed to having cell towers in city parks at all. One of the speakers was City Councilor Sharla Gardner, who said the city council had not knowingly supported the new location.
“What we thought was going to happen is it was going to be replaced at the site where it already existed,” said Gardner. “We thought that it was going to be an improved tower, and we thought it was going in the same place. I quite frankly don’t understand why that isn’t happening.”
In fact, the lease that the city council approved in July did not mention a new location for the pole. All it said was that the city approved a pole at 1805 E. Skyline Parkway—the address for all of Chester Park. During the council’s discussion of the lease, CAO Montgomery had said nothing about a new location, but instead happily focused on all the new cash the city would be raking in.
Frequently, when city staff wishes a commission to approve a certain plan, they will mention all the people who have approved it thus far, leaving commissioners to decide whether they will stand in the way of something that is so clearly on the path to completion. It is rare that anybody ever checks on these claims. It was only Mr. Stevenson’s and Mr. Stulz’s bad luck that Councilor Gardner happened to be present when they were putting words in her mouth.
The Planning Commission ultimately tabled the resolution, asking to see a formal recommendation from the Parks Commission before they made a decision.
The Parks Commission had their regular meeting the next day, on September 10, 2014. An item related to the Chester Park pole was on their agenda, placed there by city staff at the last minute. As the discussion commenced, it quickly became clear that, despite the claims of city staff, this was the first time parks commissioners had ever heard of the issue. “Is that pole right on the ski hill?” asked Commissioner Eric Viken, a note of incredulity in his voice.
“It’s off to the edge of the run,” said City Land Use Supervisor Chuck Froseth. “It’s not in the run, it’s not on the run. It’s at the edge of the run.”
The same citizens from a day earlier were present to speak against the pole. City Councilor Gardner showed up to reiterate her concerns. Councilor Joel Sipress was also there. “I’m here to encourage the commission to support locating the tower at the current location,” he said. “The proposed new location would require us to carve out a 20 by 20 spot, put up a fence, and basically disrupt a really nice part of Chester Bowl. In addition, in order to move it to the new location, we’d have to excavate the cross-country [ski] trail to lay the utility lines. If we leave it where it is, there’s no excavation necessary.”
Kathy Bergen, the city’s director of parks, was present. A day earlier, of course, Stevenson and Stulz had bandied about Ms. Bergen’s name frequently, as someone who had been closely involved in the process and who supported the new location for the pole. Today, however, Bergen told a different story. “There were several of us that walked the entire park area two weeks ago, and there were representatives from the Chester Bowl Community Club with us, and the consensus of our group was unanimous: The best location would be to leave it where it currently is.” In other words: Totally opposite what Stevenson and Stulz had claimed.
In the end, the Parks Commission voted to keep the pole in its current location. The issue now goes back to the Planning Commission, where, one hopes, a similar decision will be reached.
And that, hopefully, will be the end of the whole ridiculous issue.

III. The verdict

All I can say is: What a waste. After two and a half years of study, and after determined efforts by city planners to ram the new location through the legislative process by misrepresenting the facts, everything came down to a completely common-sense conclusion that everyone (other than city planners) saw immediately: Leave the pole where it is.
Which begs the question: What was the point of all that effort? It was a complete waste of time.
And this is what we’re paying people to do.

jramos@shiningreputation.com