2017.06.20 Work Session Packet
Posted: June 16, 2017
City Council
Work Session Agenda
June 20, 2017
Immediately following the City Council meeting
Conference Room A
Pursuant to due call and notice given in the manner prescribed by Section 3.01 of the City
Charter, the work session of the Crystal City Council was held at ______ p.m. on
June 20, 2017 in Conference Room A, 4141 Douglas Dr. N., Crystal, Minnesota.
I. Attendance
Council members Staff
____ Kolb ____ Norris
____ LaRoche ____ Therres
____ Parsons ____ Gilchrist
____ Adams ____ Revering
____ Budziszewski ____ Ray
____ Dahl ____ Sutter
____ Deshler ____ Serres
II. Agenda
The purpose of the work session is to discuss the following agenda items:
1. Recent legislative changes regarding small cell technology and possible changes to
the City and Zoning Codes
2. Task force status
3. Constituent issues update
4. City manager monthly check-in
5. New business*
6. Announcements*
* Denotes no supporting information included in the packet.
III. Adjournment
The work session adjourned at ______ p.m.
Auxiliary aids are available upon request to individuals with disabilities by calling the City Clerk at (763) 531-
1145 at least 96 hours in advance. TTY users may call Minnesota Relay at 711 or 1-800-627-3529.
4141 Douglas Drive North • Crystal, Minnesota 55422-1696
Tel: (763) 531-1000 • Fax: (763) 531-1188 • www.crystalmn.gov
4141 Douglas Drive North • Crystal, Minnesota 55422-1696
Tel: (763) 531-1000 • Fax: (763) 531-1188 • www.crystalmn.gov
1
501499v2 AMB CR205-30
Kennedy Troy J. Gilchrist
470 US Bank Plaza
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
(612) 337-9214 telephone
(612) 337-9310 fax
tgilchrist@kennedy-graven.com
http://www.kennedy-graven.com
&
Graven
C H A R T E R E D Also: St. Cloud Office
501 W. Germain Street, Suite 304
St. Cloud, MN 56301
(320) 240-8200 telephone
MEMORANDUM
TO: Crystal City Council
FROM: Troy Gilchrist, City Attorney
DATE: June 20, 2017
RE: Small Cell Legislation
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The wireless industry is working to deploy “small cell” wireless facilities in public rights-of-way
(ROW). To that end, the industry has sought to pass model legislation nationwide. The
telecommunications industry undertook similar efforts to push for such legislation in Minnesota.
The resulting bill was hotly contested and, eventually, what could be described as a partial
compromise was reached with the League of Cities. The League went from being strongly
opposed to being neutral, and recognized that while the resulting legislation does not sufficiently
protect local control in these matters, it was better than the legislation passed in other states. The
small cell language was included in the Omnibus Jobs Bill and is now law. As is pointed out
below, because this legislation has immediate effect staff thought it was important to bring this
issue to the Council for direction on possible amendments to the Code.
1. Wireless Governed by Minnesota ROW Law
Under prior law, “telecommunications right-of-way users,” were statutorily entitled to access
and install facilities in the ROW. Such right did not include providers of wireless services.
Such rights are subject to reasonable regulations and conditions imposed by the local
government unit (LGU). LGUs are required to enact ROW ordinances to implement this
authority.
Wireless providers may also now deploy a “small wireless facility” or a “wireless support
structure” in the ROW after the change in law.
Because the wireless services providers are currently not recognized in the Code as a right-
of-way user, we need to look at what amendments are needed to include and permit such
users under the new law.
2
501499v2 AMB CR205-30
2. Zoning
The law makes wireless support structures permitted uses, but also provides that LGUs may
make them special or conditional uses, subject to additional criteria.
LGUs are prohibited from adopting a moratorium on the processing and issuance of small
wireless facility permits.
The issue for the Council to consider is whether to exercise the option to require the
installation of such facilities in single-family residential districts.
3. Application Process
LGUs may require permits for placement of new wireless structures or colocation of small
wireless facilities in the ROW. It is unclear whether this is in lieu of or in addition to the
ROW permit already required by most existing ROW ordinances under the new law.
My recommendation is to treat such providers in the same manner as other right-of-way users
to the extent possible.
4. Collocation, Rent and Fees
An important part of this new legislation is the placement of facilities on public infrastructure
(light poles, stop lights) within the ROW. Cities generally must allow such collocation, but
may impose reasonable approval procedures to, among other things, ensure the structure can
handle the additional weight. Cities may also charge rent within certain limits.
State law now allows cities to charge rent of up to $150 annually, plus $25 for maintenance,
for each site. This payment arrangement would presumably be reflected in an attachment
agreement governing the provider’s attachments to the LGU’s facilities.
LGUs remain entitled to recover ROW management costs, as defined by state law, from
wireless providers using the ROW via permit fees. However, the law prohibits certain third-
party fees.
5. NO PUC Rules or Dispute Resolution
The PUC will not take an active role in promulgating rules or offering dispute resolution
services related to small cell wireless, as the law did not provide them clear statutory
authority to do so. However, the law does provide that cities may
Cities are authorized to require separate agreements with wireless providers governing
attachments to the LGU’s poles or other facilities.
Staff Recommendation
ROW Regulations
The Council should direct staff to take the following steps with respect to treating wireless
providers as right-of-way users that can collocate on City facilities.
3
501499v2 AMB CR205-30
Review the regulations on right-of-way users and develop amendments as needed to include
wireless service providers.
Update/expand permit procedures and fees as needed.
Determine the need for a written agreement regarding collocation and, if needed, prepare the
necessary documents.
Zoning
Staff recommends adoption of a CUP requirement for new poles* in the ROW in the R-1 district
and has three suggested criteria for such CUPs:
No less than 5 feet from the street curb (for snow storage, etc.)
No more than 5 feet from the side lot line extended to the street (to reduce visibility when
people are looking out of their front windows)
Constructed from earth-toned fiberglass (looks better than traditional wood poles)
*Staff recommends no CUP requirement for equipment on existing poles in R-1 because we
want to encourage telecoms to place their equipment on existing facilities instead of
installing new poles.
If the Council wants staff to proceed with a CUP requirement and amendments to the ROW user
regulations, then we need to move quickly to ensure that the requirement is in effect before the
City is forced to allow a new pole because of a 90-day rule included in the new law. To that end,
staff would propose the following schedule:
6/20 Council work session
6/29 Notice of Public Hearing published in SunPost
7/10 Plan Commission Public Hearing
7/18 Council - 1st reading
8/10 Council - 2nd reading & adoption (short special meeting before budget work
session)
8/14 Ordinance published in Star Tribune
9/13 Ordinance effective
(Note: If, as likely, we don't get any applications by Thu 6/15, this schedule - with 8/10 spec
meeting and Strib publication - would ensure there's no "gap" between the 90-day max decision
period and effective date of the CUP requirement.)