Showing posts sorted by relevance for query cell towers property taxes. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query cell towers property taxes. Sort by date Show all posts

Monday, October 21, 2013

MCPS Cell Towers Owe $86K in Property Taxes

Cell towers on public school playgrounds represent lost property tax revenue for the State of Maryland.  For 10 years MCPS cell towers escaped paying any property taxes.  It was only after years of advocacy by Louis Wilen that property tax bills were finally issued to the MCPS cell tower telecommunications companies.

However, the bills could only be issued retroactively for 3 years.  So MCPS cell towers escaped paying property taxes for 7 years. 

Now that property tax bills are being issued, let's take a look at which telecommunications companies aren't paying.  Note that when these bills are not paid the State of Maryland can not force a tax sale like they would on a home. Instead, the State must take each of these bills to Court for collection.

The chart below shows which telecommunications companies owe property taxes on their cell towers on MCPS playgrounds. Some of these companies owe 5 years of property taxes.

17,202.24Sprint/NextelRandolph RoadKennedy High School
16,345.63Tower CoEmory Grove RoadWoodwards Road School site
16,342.07Tower CoOld Georgetown RoadTilden Middle School
15,588.20Sprint/NextelEmory Grove RoadWoodwards Road School site
13,693.68ComcastEmory Grove RoadWoodwards Road School site
7,083.86Clear Wireless 12501 Dalewood DriveWheaton High School
178.72Clear Wireless Valley Brook DriveSpringbrook High School
76.92CricketOlney Sandy Spring RoadSherwood High School

TOTAL in over due property tax bills for MCPS cell towers:  $86,511.32

Wednesday, July 9, 2014

Milestone Won't Pay Property Taxes on Cell Towers - Board Responds to Parents' Coalition

Why should Milestone Communications cell towers pay property taxes in Maryland?  
(Remember, this is the Doug Duncan "no brainer" deal.)

Well, it's only a Maryland regulation! 
But, who needs tax regulations?  Apparently not the Anne Arundel County Board of Education. 

Today, the Anne Arundel County Board of Education discussed the placement of a Milestone Communications cell tower on the Magothy River and Severn River Middle Schools site.  Listen to the discussion in the video below.
  • First, you will hear a Anne Arundel Board member state that there is a federal "obligation" that cell towers be built on public school playgrounds (minute 6 of video).  Really? Exactly what federal law says that?
  • Second, you will hear the Anne Arundel Board members discuss an e-mail from the Parents' Coalition of Montgomery County, MD (minute 9 of video, Parents' Coalition mentioned at 11:30 of video) alerting them to the fact that the one cell tower already in operation in their county at Broadneck High School does not have a tax account id number and is not paying property taxes.  A Milestone Communications representative is sitting right at the table in front of the Board while they discuss this issue.  Listen as the school administrators and Milestone Communications representative waive away any responsibility for paying property taxes on cell towers located on public school land.  It's only property taxes.  Who cares if Milestone Communications doesn't pay the property taxes on their for-profit cell towers?  

Monday, February 11, 2013

Tax payments overdue for cell towers on MCPS properties

County adds interest to unpaid bills


Records obtained from Montgomery County Government reveal that several owners of cell towers that are situated on MCPS Board of Education property have failed to pay thousands of dollars of state, county and city property taxes that were due in 2012 and earlier.   The offenders include Sprint, Comcast, and Cricket Communications.

The taxes were billed pursuant to a Maryland property tax law that requires lessees of government-owned property to pay property taxes. 

A description of the applicable law is found in the Maryland Assessment Procedures Manual.
For government owned property, the tower site should be assessed to the tenant ( Lessee) in possession of the property. The Tax Property Article, in Section 6-102(e), provides that the "interest of a person in property owned by the federal, the State, a county, or a municipal corporation government is subject to property taxes as though the lessee or the user of the property were the owner of the property, if the property is leased ... in conjunction with a business that is conducted for profit." 
While the towers have been in place on school grounds for many years, the Maryland Department of Assessments and Taxation added assessment records for the towers to their database only recently after they learned that former Superintendent Jerry Weast had quietly signed leases with the cell phone companies over the past decade.  Many of the leases were signed without approval from the Board of Education and without notice to the public.

Links to a few of the many unpaid property tax bills are below.

https://www6.montgomerycountymd.gov/apps/tax/ViewDetail.asp?RID=4796861

https://www6.montgomerycountymd.gov/apps/tax/ViewDetail.asp?RID=4796840

https://www6.montgomerycountymd.gov/apps/tax/ViewDetail.asp?RID=4797428

https://www6.montgomerycountymd.gov/apps/tax/ViewDetail.asp?RID=4796854

https://www6.montgomerycountymd.gov/apps/tax/ViewDetail.asp?RID=4796842

According to a high-level official at the Maryland State Department of Assessments and Taxation, failure to pay the tax bills will eventually lead to a tax lien sale of the towers and equipment that are on the leased sites. 

Update -- 5/232013:  We are being told now that the towers and equipment are not eligible to be included in the tax lien sale.  Instead, the Montgomery County must sue the cell tower companies to recover the unpaid taxes, which is potentially a long and expensive process compared to a tax lien sale. In addition, taxes that have gone uncollected for more than three years can never be recovered due to a limitation imposed by state law.

Tuesday, July 18, 2017

10 MCPS Cell Tower Tenants Have Not Paid 2016 Property Taxes, Including Comcast

Daly Elementary School cell tower, Germantown, MD
MCPS staff love to pretend that cell towers bring money to our public school system.  However, as the Parents' Coalition exposed in 2011, telecommunications companies were not paying their required property taxes for years.  That means that our government and public schools were actually losing funding because the commercial cell towers were hiding in plain site on government land without paying their property taxes. 

Property taxes support our system of free public schools.

Once again in 2016, 10 telecommunications companies using cell towers on Montgomery County Board of Education property have not yet paid their property taxes. When will those bills be paid? How long should public school children wait for their funding?   

What schools have telecommunications companies that have not yet paid their 2016 property taxes?  
Here is the list:

Blake High School
Kennedy High School
Northwood High School
Sherwood High School
Tilden Middle School
Wheaton High School
Woodwards Road unused school site (Comcast leases most of this property.)

Thursday, February 20, 2020

Cell Tower Vendors on Board of Education Land Owe $165,000 in Property Taxes #Again

The Montgomery County Board of Education has cell towers on 12 pieces of public school land. 11 of those cell towers are on Board of Education property where a public school is currently located.

7 of those cell towers have vendors who have not been paying their Maryland Property Taxes. The amount of property tax dues for each vendor is shown in the images below.  The account number is shown on the MCPS list of cell towers and on the property tax bills below. Note some cell towers have multiple vendors.

The Parents' Coalition discovered unpaid property taxes in 2013, and in 2015, and in 2016, and again in 2017, on cell tower compounds located on Board of Education land. 










Monday, February 22, 2016

Wheaton HS Cell Tower Owes $15 Thou$and in back Property Taxes


The Wheaton HS cell tower now sits right next to the building.
Fortunately, Montgomery County is rich and doesn't need the property tax revenue from cell towers that are built on Montgomery County Public School land.  

The Board of Education is happy to allow private companies to build on dedicated public school land, and not pay property taxes.  

Public school students lose the use of dedicated public school land, and the County loses the property tax revenue that could help fund the public schools.  It's a lose-lose for the public school students! 

The Parents' Coalition has been tracking the failure of cell towers to pay their required property taxes for years.  This is not a new problem. This is one of the reasons we are opposed to private companies taking over public school land for uses unrelated to the education of public school students.  

The account number for the Wheaton cell tower is 03696636.

In just that one property tax account, the cell tower vendor using Board of Education land owes over $15,000 dollars in back property taxes. 

Check the account for yourself at the link below. Enter
03696636 into the Account Number field to see the tax bills.

 https://www2.montgomerycountymd.gov/realpropertytax/default.aspx


Wheaton High School was moved to a new location, right next to cell tower. 

Monday, February 29, 2016

$120,285 in Uncollected Property Taxes on Board of Education Cell Towers

Base of a Board of Education cell tower.
Last week, the Parents' Coalition documented how many of the Board of Education cell towers owe back property taxes.  The total amount in back taxes currently owed is $120,285.85.

The amount of property taxes owed on Board of Education cell towers could buy 2 more teachers for MCPS classrooms. 

Friday, July 3, 2015

Cell tower owners continue to ignore tax bills; county does nothing to collect

Property tax bills for 2015 became available online on July 1.   You can view yours here.

Owners of homes and commercial properties that don't pay their property tax lose the property to an investor who pays the taxes in exchange for receiving a lien on the property.  The tax lien process is explained here.  It takes about a year for the owner to actually lose the property, but it's a virtual certainty that if you don't pay your property taxes, you will lose your home within a year of when the taxes were due.

But for owners of cell towers located on public school property in Montgomery County, paying taxes has been optional for many years.  When a cell tower company doesn't pay the taxes on their cell site, the county takes no action to collect the overdue debt.

Montgomery County is supposed to sell a lien on the tower and cell site equipment, and the lien holder would then be able to foreclose on the cell site equipment.  But for reasons that county officials won't discuss, tax liens are not sold for cell sites on public school property in Montgomery County.

Clear Wireless hasn't paid their tax bills from 2010, 2011, 2012 or 2014.  Will they pay their 2015 tax bill?  It doesn't appear likely.

Try disregarding your property tax bill this year and let us know what happens!

While you're at it, try disregarding your cell phone bill for a few months and let us know how long it takes for your cell phone service to be shut down.

Overdue Property Tax bills for Clear Wireless site at Wheaton High School
 

Tuesday, July 29, 2014

How cell towers avoid paying property taxes.

Let's take one more look at the special exception application filed by T-Mobile in 2005 to build a cell tower on the Julius West Middle School playground. 

Look at the box (circled in red) that calls for the applicant to write in a tax account number.  The numbers on this application are for the property owner, the Montgomery County Board of Education. 

The Board of Education is exempt from paying property taxes, T-Mobile is not. 

By using the Board of Education's tax account number cell tower vendors have avoided paying property taxes on cell towers erected on public school land.




Thursday, March 5, 2015

Cell Towers on MCPS Playgrounds Owe $111,738 in Back Taxes

Daly Elem. Darnestown, MD
Who cares?
No one in Montgomery County.
No one in the State of Maryland.
But, if you are curious here are the details.

Where are the cell towers that owe back Maryland State Property Taxes?

Kennedy High School
Springbrook High School
Tilden Middle School
Wheaton High School (Yes, MCPS is building an entire school around this cell tower.)

Woodswards Road Elementary School site (this site has been completely leased out to cell tower vendors and Comcast and is unavailable for use as a public school)


Who are the cell tower vendors that owe back taxes?

Comcast
Clear Wireless (a subsidiary of Sprint)
Sprint/Nextel
Tower Company

How much do they owe?  $111,738.81

Want proof? Check the Montgomery County Real Estate Property Tax records.  That's the source of our information.

See why cell towers on public school land are such a great deal?

Monday, February 19, 2018

Statement in Support of Gov. Hogan's Proposal for an Inspector General for Education

Statement on Senate Bill 302 Accountability in Education Act of 2018
February 7, 2018
Senate Education, Health and Environmental Affairs Committee

Janis Zink Sartucci
 Parents' Coalition of Montgomery County, Maryland
 parentscoalitionmc@outlook.com

Formed in 2002, the Parents' Coalition of Montgomery County, Maryland seeks to achieve the goals of coherent, content-rich curriculum standards; high expectations combined with timely remediation and acceleration; a wider range of educational options for parents and children; greater transparency and accountability; and meaningful community input. The Parents' Coalition is a non-partisan group made up of independents, Republicans, and Democrats like myself.  We believe that public school education is a vital right for all children.  We believe that every dollar labeled for education should benefit classrooms and that when children attend public schools they should be in a safe and secure environment.

In Governor Hogan's press conference announcing the introduction of this bill, he mentioned our 2014 investigation into the use of personal MCPS credit cards by Board of Education members and MCPS administrators.

Over the years the Parents' Coalition has investigated various issues related to our public school system.  Each and every investigation has been validated by State Audits and, or investigative journalists from all of the major news sources in the Washington, D.C. area.  Today I would like to briefly mention some of our investigations in the hopes that the vital need for an Investigator General for Education in the State of Maryland will become clear.

• Our investigation into the use of personal credit cards by Board of Education members and Montgomery County Public School administrators revealed that thousands of credit cards had been issued but that the credit card bills are paid without verification.  Over the years the credit card bill has climbed to over $8 million a year.  Any time these bills are reviewed, improprieties are revealed.

• No bid purchases continue to be the prevalent with the Board of Education and often the majority of Board of Education spending is without bids or review of vendors.  At the last Board of Education on January 9, 2018, there was $4.8 million in spending.  Of those purchases 8 contracts were no bid and 12 were “extensions.”  The majority of the $4.8 million was spent without competitive bidding or a review of contractors for quality or price.

• In 2009, while working with a federal inspector general, I uncovered the no bid purchase of 3,300 Promethean boards for over $12 million.  Those Promethean Boards were being purchased on individual invoices so as to avoid Board of Education public votes on the purchase.

• Further investigation into the under the table Promethean Board purchases revealed that the Board of Education had been receiving rebates from the federal government that they were not reporting in their public budget documents.  As of 2009, the Board of Education had received over $21 million that had not been disclosed in public budget documents.  The Board was then spending those funds on no bid purchases, without any public disclosure.

• Our 2013 investigation into the placement of commercial cell towers on public school land revealed that those cell towers were hiding in plain site and not paying property taxes.  At the time Louis Wilen discovered that the cell tower companies had avoided hundreds of thousands of dollars in property taxes by building on public school land.  He prompted the State to begin issuing property tax bills as required by law, but years of tax revenue was lost forever.

• In 2008, we uncovered the illegal charging of class fees.  In Maryland, students are entitled to a free public education.  Unfortunately, that right is not honored by the Montgomery County Board of Education and to this day students are denied their right to attend public school free of charge.

• In 2013, working with parents and staff we exposed the stealing of student funds at Rock Terrace School.

• In 2013, I uncovered that our Board of Education was allowing teachers who were suspected of sexually abusing students to stay in classrooms.  The Board would issue “restriction letters” to the teachers telling them to stop touching or otherwise physically interacting with students.  In some cases, the teachers were left in their classrooms, in other cases they were moved to new schools without parents ever being informed as to the potential danger to their children.

• I uncovered that Capital Budget funds of over $8 million are diverted annually to the Operating Budget without disclosure in the public budget documents.

• We have investigated students with disabilities not receiving services they need, yet that same testing qualifies them for services under the Americans with Disabilities Act if they go to college.

• Monitoring gaps:  MCPS, as well as other Maryland school districts, have been addressing educational achievement gaps forever.  MCPS has been at it for more than 3 decades.  Yet, pretty much every school district in the state is unable to answer simple questions.  For example:  Overtime, has the black-white achievement gap--measured with test scores narrowed within districts like MCPS?  The reason we cannot answer the question is because districts like MCPS have not used a common measurement standard overtime.  But one does exists:  NAEP.  Make districts use NAEP for gap measuring initiatives.  NAEP is low cost.  The federal government produces it.  Districts can buy in.  https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/

• Require districts to periodically conduct follow-along (longitudinal) studies:  We have no systematic means by which to determine if inputs generate significant outputs (outcomes).
We want all districts to conduct follow-along studies.  And these studies would include following dropouts.  Normally, such studies pick a cohort/class and begin following them at the end of middle school.  By beginning this early, studies include dropouts.  Districts also would capture what happens to special populations.  Right now, a district like MCPS only seems interested in kids that complete college--never documenting what happens to other populations. https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/hsb/    Jerry and Jody’s Kids: Where are They Now? | MoCoEdBlog

• We have monitored the public school funds diverted to the Maryland Association of Boards of Education (MABE).   We continually watch as public education dollars are spent on this private club that gives no bid vendors exclusive access to Board of Education members in closed meetings and at an annual vacation in Ocean City.  Those vendors have secured no bid contracts with Boards of Education across the State, all without public oversight or competition.

• We have investigated and exposed the failure of our public school system to keep children safe from sexual predators in classrooms.  We have attended court proceedings and heard how teachers who have been arrested and convicted of crimes against children remain on the MCPS payroll and can even have their records expunged so that they can return to jobs working with children.  The list of teachers and administrators who have had their licenses suspended and revoked should be made public and parents should have access to this information.  Currently, the Parents' Coalition is the only source for this complete information.

• The fraud, waste and abuse of tax dollars is unfortunate, but dollars can be replaced.  Our childrens' lives can not.  First and foremost, we would like to see an Education Investigator General work on making sure that all Maryland children are safe and protected from predators when they attend our public schools.

Thank you for your time today and for your consideration of Senate Bill 302.

Monday, June 20, 2016

Secret Deal Set for Cell Tower for Summit Hall Elementary School Field

Chart shows that 82% of students live in poverty.
Welcome to Montgomery County!

How does our community treat our poorest residents?

We exclude them from participating in public decisions and mark their communities with cell towers on their playgrounds and fields.

On Monday, June 20, 2016, the City of Gaithersburg Council will vote to authorize staff to sign a secret lease with a cell tower company to build a cell tower on the fields next to Summit Hall Elementary School.

The City Council is giving the public absolutely NO INFORMATION about the proposed cell tower construction project.  The lease that is being authorized HAS NOT BEEN MADE PUBLIC.
There are absolutely NO DETAILS about the cell tower.
For example:
  • What HAZMAT materials will be stored at the site?  
  • What type of cell tower will be built? 
  • What type of fencing will be used? 
  • Will there be barbed wire?  
  • Will the cell tower have a light at the top or at the base?  
  • Where will the road be constructed for accessing the cell tower?  
  • Will cell tower workers be prevented from accessing the cell tower during baseball/softball games or will their trucks be freely traveling the field as the games are played?
  • How will the cell tower compound be landscaped? 
  • When is the balloon test?
  • How big will the cell tower site be initially? 
  • Where will the site be expanded as carriers are added?  
  • Will Verizon be paying the property taxes on the cell tower compound?
  • Where will PEPCO be running power to the site?
  • What about flooding at Morris Park?  
We will stop there.

Those are just some of the many unanswered questions about the Summit Hall Elementary School field cell tower that will be approved Monday evening.

Now, if this cell tower were being proposed for say, Whitman High School's baseball field would the parents and neighbors have an opportunity to have their questions answered and would they be given the details?
We know the answer to that question.  There already was a cell tower proposed for the Whitman High School baseball field and the cell tower vendor held a meeting for parents.

 http://parentscoalitionmc.blogspot.com/2010/01/cell-tower-meeting-for-whitman-hs.html

Affluent = Gets meeting with details and can ask questions.
Poor = Gets zip.

Welcome to Montgomery County!

Tuesday, May 27, 2014

Cell tower property tax still unpaid

Cell tower companies are continuing to show Montgomery County and the Board of Education "who's boss" by not bothering to pay thousands of dollars of property taxes for towers located on land owned by the Montgomery County Board of Education.   Even though some of the taxes are several years overdue, the Board of Education has not terminated the leases and the county government has not foreclosed on the towers.

Just a couple of the absconders are listed below.

Unpaid taxes for cell site at Wheaton High School - Clear Wireless



Unpaid taxes for cell site at Tilden Middle School - Tower Co.

Meanwhile, on June 9, the county will be selling liens against substantially all other residential and commercial properties that are just six months overdue in paying their taxes, which will eventually lead to the loss of ownership of these homes.

Monday, January 3, 2011

Breaking News: State investigating cell phone towers at Montgomery schools | Washington Examiner

State investigating cell phone towers at Montgomery schools | Washington Examiner


Maryland officials are investigating why cell phone companies are not paying taxes for towers on Montgomery County school property -- and why these towers were not reported to the state Department of Assessments and Taxation...
...The Montgomery County Public School system has contracts with T-Mobile and AT&T, among others. A spokesman for the schools said officials were not aware of any requirement to report the towers to the state tax office.
A cell phone tower associated with an educational, religious or nonprofit use may be exempt from taxes but still "must be discovered, listed and assessed," according to the Maryland Assessment Procedures Manual. However, even if the tower is on school property, if it's being used commercially, the tower "should be made taxable, and notices should be sent to the owner of the real estate."
"You'd have to go a long way to convince me this is not a commercial use," said Roy Sleeman, supervisor of assessments...


Read more at the Washington Examiner: 
http://washingtonexaminer.com/state-investigating-cell-phone-towers-at-montgomery-schools/article/109047

Tuesday, July 8, 2014

Another cell tower on public school land not paying property taxes

The Parents' Coalition has learned that there is no tax account number for the cell tower on the Broadneck High School field in Anne Arundel County. The cell tower is on the property of the Board of Education of Anne Arundel.  

Another cell tower hiding in plain site and avoiding paying Maryland property taxes?

What a great deal!

Broadneck High School cell tower under construction October 2013:
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-10-28/news/bs-md-ar-cell-tower-bill-20131017_1_cell-towers-milestone-communications-len-forkas

Monday, May 14, 2018

Sue Present, "Please postpone action on ZTA 18-02....the foundation of administrative reviews and permitting processes that fail to serve the public interest, and the application fee structure where taxpayers subsidize the wireless industry, must be corrected first."

County.Council@montgomerycountymd.gov,
County Council LMHosted ,
"Floreen's Office, Councilmember" ,
Hans.Riemer@montgomerycountymd.gov,
"Leventhal's Office, Councilmember" ,
Councilmember.Hucker@montgomerycountymd.gov,
Councilmember.Katz@montgomerycountymd.gov,
Councilmember.Berliner@montgomerycountymd.gov,
Councilmember.Navarro@montgomerycountymd.gov,
councilmember.rice@montgomerycountymd.gov,
Councilmember.Elrich@montgomerycountymd.gov

Dear President Reimer and Members of the County Council,

Please postpone action on ZTA 18-02. It would be premature for the Council
to consider action on the ZTA at this time. Some of the amendments that have
been recommended by the PHED Committee are improvements over the original
ZTA. However, as you will see below, many problems remain with the ZTA, and
new problems have emerged. Moreover, as many residents have been asserting
since well before the ZTA was introduced, the foundation of administrative
reviews and permitting processes that fail to serve the public interest, and
the application fee structure where taxpayers subsidize the wireless
industry, must be corrected first.

In advance of the May 3rd PHED Committee Worksession, I sent a message to
the PHED Committee and to its Legislative Analyst Jeffrey Zyontz regarding
misleading and inaccurate information in the Worksession Packet.
Unfortunately, some of those inaccuracies have made their way into the
Council Packet, too. 

In my correspondence with the PHED Committee, I also discussed timing
issues, sharing that it was not until the day before the ZTA 18-02 Hearing,
March 19th, that a message came to me and to other concerned residents from
the CE’s staff that indicated a desire to work together to craft a local
solution. This message was an about-face: Our prior inquiries were
sidestepped, met with prolonged delays, or never answered at all, which
frustrated and stymied our efforts.
But we had nevertheless persevered in
developing our Residents’ Alternative ZTA (ALT-ZTA) solutions, even if not
as quickly as Councilmembers would have preferred. And, I attached to my
previous correspondence the slides that outline our ALT-ZTA solutions, which
are also attached herein.

On May 3rd, when other residents and I who had previously testified before
the Council at the ZTA Hearing arrived at the PHED Committee Worksession, we
were delighted when the CE’s Special Assistant, Joy Nurmi, greeted us and
assured us that the PHED Committee was not going to be taking any action on
the ZTA (no votes, just discussion). Ms. Nurmi graciously invited us to meet
with her and to work together. And we, of course, affirmatively responded.
Even after the Worksession outcome of the ZTA had morphed, and the PHED
Committee did take action, we remained optimistic. Promptly after the
Worksession, in preparation for the meeting with Ms. Nurmi, I prepared and
submitted a set of questions to the CE’s Director of the Department of
Permitting Services, Diane Schwartz Jones, seeking pertinent clarifications
and interpretations. 

As for the PHED Committee Worksession, Chair Floreen also indicated that
the Committee would be taking no action on the item – no votes or
recommendations – there would only be discussion. However, as the discussion
progressed, the Committee reversed course and arrived at some recommended
amendments. And, now, much to our surprise, the ZTA has been expedited to
the full Council for action (tomorrow, May 15, 2018), which undermines
the value of the residents’ collaborating with Ms. Nurmi to craft a local
solution.


I urge the Council to postpone action on ZTA 18-02.

Sincerely, 

Sue Present


1.     Application/Permit Fees and Taxes. Passing ZTA 18-02 without first
increasing Tower Committee application fees to make the applications
entirely supported by the applicants shifts added costs to Montgomery County
taxpayers/residents.
The information from the PHED Committee Packet, which
discusses the Executive’s budget, obscures the facts. Here are relevant
facts:

a.      Tower Committee application fees are subsidized by Montgomery
County taxpayers/residents. (see
http://parentscoalitionmc.blogspot.com/2018/05/moco-subsidizes-cost-of-revie
wing.html
 )

b.      Tower Committee application fees have not been increased since
2003.
http://montgomerycountymd.gov/cable/Resources/Files/Towers/documents/execreg
1303fees.pdf
 

c.      According to CTC Expert Andrew Afflerbach, “it is more
time-consuming to evaluate applications for facilities in the PROW (public
right-of-way) than on private property.” See Exhibit 1, Declaration of
Andrew Afflerbach, p. 15,
http://montgomerycountymd.gov/cable/Resources/Files/Towers/documents/Mobilit
ie%20Comments%20-%20SMART%20COMMUNITIES%20SITING%20COALITION%20(2017).pdf
 

d.      Dr. Afflerbach’s firm, CTC, has long been retained by the County to
provide technical evaluations and support services to the Tower Committee.
CTC is paid on an hourly basis for its services. Therefore, based upon Dr.
Afflerbach’s statement, CTC receives greater compensation for its work
concerning applications for facilities in the public rights-of-way.

e.      Mitsi Herrera told the PHED Committee that the Tower Committee
would need to come back to the Council to adjust fees this summer (at ~ min
 01:21:55 of the Worksession).

f.       Tower Committee records do not show meaningful evidence of pending
applications in Downtown Silver Spring. But the County anticipates a
significant number of applications in the future. At the 09/18/17 Small
Antenna Community Meeting, the County asserted that Verizon’s transmission
capacity in Downtown Silver Spring would begin to exhaust in 2018 (see slide
6:
http://montgomerycountymd.gov/cable/Resources/Files/Towers/documents/ZTA%20C
ommunity%20Meeting%20Sept%2018%202017%20v2.pd ). And the discussion at that
meeting asserted immediate transmission capacity needs in the downtown areas
for other providers, too. The Tower Committee’s interactive map does not
identify applications as having yet been filed in response to the asserted
pressing capacity needs in Downtown Silver Spring. However, the map does
identify plans for numerous applications that have not yet been filed.
https://gis3.montgomerycountymd.gov/WirelessAntennasAndTowers/   In
addition, the PHED Committee’s discussion at ~min 01:18:45 recounted that
the County anticipates 700 upcoming installations.   

g.      ZTA 18-02 is scheduled to take effect 20 days after its passage.
Thus, any application filed with the Tower Committee will be filed with
bargain-rate application fees, on the taxpayers’/residents’ dime, until the
application fees are corrected.

h.      At the 06/14/17 Wireless Technology Community Meeting, the County
identified as a “process improvement” to “Require 100% post‐construction
inspection to ensure deployments are built as promised” (and it therefore
recognized the deficits in DPS processes.) See slide 12,
http://montgomerycountymd.gov/cable/Resources/Files/Towers/documents/5G%20Co
mmunity%20Meeting%202017%20v3.pdf


i.       No DPS process improvements were discussed at the PHED Committee
Worksession.

At the Public Hearing on ZTA 18-02, I was among several that testified
about the need for the Council to first address both the fees and the
administrative deficiencies within these agencies. The Council received data
collected by Rick Meyer, MC4T, which underscores the need for corrective
action first. The Tower Committee needs an overhaul. I hope that Director
Jones’s responses to my questions will help clarify why DPS seems to be
issuing many permits without proper regard for the regulatory standards and
processes. Please consider our Residents’ ALT-ZTA solutions to provide
residents the fair and appropriate protections that have been sorely lacking
for many years. See slide 7. 

2.     Conditional Use – New/Replacment Poles. The PHED Committee has
recommended a clarification to the Conditional Use language for New Poles
that is helpful in clarifying the intent of the original text. By removing
previously inserted words “from any property line” from line 173, the text
correctly provides that the new pole must meet the 1:1 standard for the full
height of the facility or the 300-foot dwelling setback, whichever provides
the greater setback. 

I am concerned, however, that the Council has also received misleading and
confusing information in its Packet on this issue concerning when a
Conditional Use is required for new/replacement poles in the public
rights-of-way.
Please note that at the PHED Committee Worksession, Mitsi
Herrera offered this clarification at ~ min.  01:21:55: “In the residential
area, if you want to put in a new pole or you want to replace a pole it
requires a Conditional Use. The ZTA makes no change to that. It continues to
require a Conditional Use.” Unfortunately a passage in the Council’s Packet
that is included from the PHED Committee Packet may add confusion: “Only
utility poles can withstand the stress of antennas. Where there are no
utility poles, the replacement of a light pole with an antenna that has a
street light on it would require conditional use approval.”  



As the Planning Board’s recommendation explains, antennas and their
equipment are often not attached to pre-existing utility poles; replacement
utility poles are used to support heavy antennas and equipment. The ZTA
“[e]stablishes new regulations concerning utility poles (poles that support
electric wires), streetlight poles and parking lot lights. In order to
support antennas and equipment, typically the pre-existing pole must be
removed and a stronger and taller replacement pole is needed. Under ZTA
18-02, streetlights, utility poles, and parking lot lights in
Commercial/Residential, Industrial, and Employment zones, can be replaced as
a limited use under certain conditions as highlighted below.” See page
circle 23. ZTA 18-02 only provides Limited Use standards for new/replacement
poles in the Commercial/Residential, Industrial, and Employment zones. To be
clear, new/replacement utility poles for the support of wireless
telecommunications facilities continue to be Conditional Uses, as do any
poles that would be deployed in the right-of-way of a residential area with
underground utility service would be. 

In the zones in which ZTA 18-02 does provide Limited Use standards, those
standards are inadequate (inadequate to meet protective community standard
as Limited Use) because the ZTA blindly permits additional height to utility
poles without establishing a base height or regulating a maximum height for
the facilities. Residents’ testimony documented that some of these
replacement utility poles result in facilities that are the heights of
macro-towers. So, this is another example of where the ZTA provides
inequitable protections to residents who do not live in detached-housing
neighborhoods. By contrast, our ALT-ZTA offers high levels of protections
for the residents of all neighborhoods and communities, whether the
replacement concerns a utility pole or whether it concerns a County
streetlight. 

As previously mentioned, Rick Meyer, of MC4T, has documented significant
inconsistencies in past practices of DPS’s authorizations for the
deployments of antenna attachments to replacement and new utility poles in
residential areas.
I look forward to understanding much more about DPS’s
permitting decisions for new pole deployments, and hope that the DPS
Director’s responses will help explain why some of the Tower Committee’s
recommendations, which were conditioned upon reviews by the Hearing
Examiner, were issued permits by DPS without prior OZAH reviews.

3.     Property Values. The Council has received misleading information in
the Packet about property values. Montgomery County already concluded that
“the placement of small cells, particularly in the rights-of-way, presents
significant challenges and risks to communities including: Increased safety
risks, Negative impacts on adjoining property, local businesses, other
utilities, and on redevelopment projects…” Montgomery County, partnering
with the local Maryland governments of Gaithersburg, Takoma Park, Rockville,
Poolesville, Berwyn Heights, Capitol Heights, College Park, Greenbelt, Havre
de Grace, LaPlata, Laurel, New Carrollton, Perryville, Pocomoke City,
University Park, and Westminster, and with other local governments from
across the United States, shared the conclusions about the negative impacts
of wireless antenna facilities upon neighboring property values in Comments
to the FCC on March 8, 2017, under the name “Smart Communities Siting
Coalition.” These Comments are bolstered with the “Report and Declaration of
David E. Burgoyne for the Smart Communities Siting Coalition,” which was
attached in Exhibit 3. That report concludes that wireless facilities of all
sizes diminish property values.

http://montgomerycountymd.gov/cable/Resources/Files/Towers/documents/Mobilit
ie%20Comments%20-%20SMART%20COMMUNITIES%20SITING%20COALITION%20(2017).pdf
 

As explained in my correspondence to the PHED Committee, Burgoyne
recognizes that larger facilities, and those without concealments, can have
greater adverse effects than smaller facilities with good concealments. That
is why, to protect residents, our ALT-ZTA establishes the standard
Completely Concealed Facility, which is a higher standard for concealments
than is required by ZTA 18-02. And Burgoyne indicates that it is important
to consider the full, potential impact of a facility, as it can be expanded
through the Spectrum Act. Our ALT-ZTA heeds this advice, but ZTA 18-02 does
not. Burgoyne also recognizes that adverse property value impacts can be
minimized if equipment is vaulted. So, we consulted with a vendor that has
developed waterproof vaults (proven to withstand hurricane conditions). And,
after doing so, and after reviewing other jurisdictions’ vaulting
requirements, we established standards for vaulting equipment in our
ALT-ZTA.

4.     Setbacks. The PHED Committee’s recommendations restore the 60-foot
setback protections from single-family homes or duplexes to what has been
“small cell” antennas on poles in the current Zoning Ordinance, and to
Size-A classification antennas on poles, in the ZTA. This is an improvement
over the ZTA as proposed. However, ZTA 18-02 continues to offer no similar
protections for those residents that live in multifamily homes, or for the
residents whose homes are in the combination commercial-residential zones.

These are the homes are where you will find our adult children, our aging
parents, and where many families live because they find single-family
detached or duplex homes in the County out of reach. Please provide these
residents with equitable protections under ZTA 18-02.

For these residents, ZTA 18-02 technically requires antennas on poles to be
setback only 10-feet from their homes. And this setback offers very limited
protection. As noted on page 9 of your Packet, the PHED Committee elected to
ignore the encroachments that would extend into the setback (such as a
6-foot balcony or a 3-foot bay window). And the offset/expanse of the
antennas on poles has been ignored, too. Essentially, the distance from a
balcony to an antenna could approach zero. Please recall that your CTC
expert previously expressed concerns that where an antenna would be attached
to a utility pole, sited within 20 feet or so (from the dwelling), the RF
emissions levels could exceed FCC limits.
http://montgomerycountymd.gov/cable/Resources/Files/Towers/minutes/2017/June
%2014th%202017%20TFCG%20Meeting%20Minutes.pdf
 . The ZTA, if passed, could
give a foreboding new meaning to the jingle from our old landline days,
“Reach Out and Touch Someone.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HO17B-ACRn0. 

5.     Building Heights. As is the case with setbacks in detached
residential zones, the PHED Committee has recommended restoring the existing
building height standards in residential zones, which improves protections
for residents in these zones. However, there are new loopholes: 1) This
restoration of the aforementioned 60-foot setbacks applies only to a Size-A
classification antenna -- not to the larger Size B, C, D, or E
classification antennas – so there is no setback from a detached home to
antennas that can be as large as 15 feet in height; and 2) single-family
residential neighborhoods both include and abut buildings for which building
height attachment standards are reduced to 20 feet. As a result, many
single-family homes and duplexes are threatened by the ZTA building height
reductions to 20 feet and the complete absence of setback standards for
antennas of all sizes that would be attached to these buildings. 

Consider the example in the photo below. The detached dwelling at 8010
Flower Ave., Takoma Park, is zoned R-40. It neighbors a property zoned CRT,
which is among the zones that the ZTA would reduce building height standards
to 20 feet for the attachments of all size antennas, and their equipment,
too (or allows for the equipment to be ground-mounted along the property
line). As I previously explained in my ZTA testimony and other
correspondence to Councilmembers, these antennas and their equipment
(droning fans, back-up generators, and motors) could be close enough to the
neighboring homes to create disturbing noise, vibrations, and certainly
visual impacts. Furthermore, the two-story commercial building could take on
the appearance of a three-story building because the ZTA allows for an
infinite number of antennas and equipment cabinets to be roof mounted. That
could corrupt the residential neighborhood character. 

Please note that the Council is considering amendments to solar panel
legislation on Tuesday, too (ZTA 18-01). If the owners of 8010 Flower Ave.
would want to install solar panels on their roof, or if they have already
done so, then the provisions in ZTA 18-02 that authorize installation of
antennas could interfere with residential solar collection.

The ZTA’s reductions in Building Height standards to 20 feet in
multi-family, commercial-residential, and employment zones poses the same
problems and inequities for residents who live in dwellings in multifamily
zones and combination commercial-residential zones as is mentioned above
concerning “Setbacks.”  I await a response to my request to DPS Director
Jones for clarifications and interpretations of Zoning Ordinance provisions;
pertinent here are my questions concerning alignment with other sections of
the Zoning Ordinance that provide resident protections. DPS permitting
practices suggest those other sections of the Zoning Ordinance that provide
resident protections are not applied, and these residents have virtually no
protections from an infinite number of large antennas on building roofs and
façades. Please ensure that the character of these residents’ neighborhoods
and communities, and their quality of life, is respected and protected, too.

6.     Double Poles. At the PHED Committee Worksession, Vice Presidents
from PEPCO and Verizon testified that they foresaw obstacles to migrating
all pole franchisee attachers and complying with the ZTA requirement to
remove any pre-existing utility pole within the required 180 days after the
installation of a new utility pole. Presuming that “after installation”
means upon the issuance of a Use and Occupancy Permit (U&O), I find this
6-month grace period to be inconsistent with the DPS permitting process, and
unrealistic, based upon the utility VPs’ statements and my personal
experiences. 

Previous plans that I have reviewed, attached to Tower Committee
applications, assert migration of all attachers to the pre-existing poles,
and the expectation that pre-existing poles would be removed. See for
example
https://s3.amazonaws.com/montgomerycountytfcg/Applications/201005-07.pdf. It
would seem in the spirit of Section 8-27 of the Buildings Chapter of the
Code to require the “clear[ing of] all construction and demolition debris”
and “restor[ation of] the established grade of the surrounding land” prior
to the issuance of a U&O. The discussion of double-pole issues that
transpired at the PHED Committee Worksession demonstrated that that there
are ongoing problems with double poles. My own experiences certainly bear
this out. For many years, I have worked to get numerous double utility poles
on my road, including the set that my house faces, removed. My journey has
included contacts with multiple DPS personnel, correspondence with the
County Council, communications with my district Councilmember’s staff,
complaints to the Maryland PSC and PEPCO, follow-up with what PEPCO
oxymoronically calls its “reliability contractor,” and most recently with
Verizon.  

It should be patently obvious that once a U&O is issued and PEPCO begins
receiving its rent from the wireless permit holder, DPS’s direct and
indirect leverage over PEPCO for removal of the old pole and restoration of
the site would diminish.  It would make more sense for DPS to maintain
permitting control. One way to do so would be to only issue temporary
permits until all work has been completed. Our ALT-ZTA provides more
stringent, resident-protective standards, which include:

a.     (Application Standards) - If the facility will be located on real
property or on personal property (i.e. a structure) that is owned by a
person or entity other than the applicant, then those such property owners
must be co-applicants on all applications.

b.     (Compliance and Enforcement) - DPS shall issue no final permit or
authorization to operate a wireless facility until DPS has conducted an
on-site final inspection of the premises, to verify that the facility has
been built as promised, and to document the site as being free of any
pre-existing support structures, any retired or abandoned transmission
equipment, or construction debris.

7.     Signs. Apparently taking a cue from our testimonies and comments,
the C.E.’s staff recommended a text change to the ZTA to allow antenna
attachments on signs.  The intent of this addition is appreciated. But
“Signs” has been added to the ZTA without care and essential protections,
creating new loopholes and disharmony in the Zoning Ordinance. 

a.      Loopholes. This text change fails to set the same standards for
signs as for parking lot light poles, restricting only Size-A antenna
attachments and requiring 60-foot setbacks from dwellings. As a result, the
addition of “Signs” creates loopholes, including in the detached residential
zones where the PHED Committee has attempted to mitigate some of the
existing loopholes.

b.      Disharmony with Zoning Ordinance. This text change also fails to
recognize the Sign standards and the administrative processes for review and
approval, in Divisions 6 and 7 of the Zoning Ordinance, and therefore
creates additional disharmony for Section 3.5.14.C. Please recall that my
testimony raised other issues of disharmony between these telecommunications
sections and other sections of the Zoning Ordinance, such as Section 4.1.7.
My inquiry to Director Jones seeks DPS interpretations of these apparent
disharmonies as well as conflicts between the two telecommunications
sections, Sections 3.5.2.C. and 3.5.14.C. Our ALT-ZTA, in addition to
providing solutions that are more resident-protective, aligns
telecommunications solutions so that they are harmonious with the Zoning
Ordinance. See slide 9.

8.     Legislative Intent of ZTA 14-04 – Loopholes. I alerted the PHED
Committee that contrary to the statements in Mr. Zyontz’s memo, ZTA 14-04,
which allowed for “small cell” antennas on existing structures, obviously
did anticipate antennas on poles, NOT just on buildings. The following video
clip of the Planning Board meeting, at ~ min. 05:53:00, provides the
Planning Board’s discussion of ZTA 14-04, which includes the presentation by
Mitsi Herrera and CTC’s Lee Afflerbach
(http://mncppc.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2
<http://mncppc.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=1202>
&clip_id=1202). The discussion both details and includes slides of poles for
the small cells anticipated by ZTA 14-04. Nevertheless, the mis-assertions
of the legislative intent of ZTA 14-04 that had appeared in the PHED
Committee’s Packet have been carried over -- see page 8 of the Council’s
Packet. 

a.      Mr. Zyontz recognized this discrepancy in his presentation during
the PHED Committee Worksession, at ~ min. 56. But he explained that
regardless of the prior intent of 14-04, ZTA 14-04 only provided 60-foot
setbacks from “small cell” antennas on poles, not other size antennas. So,
ZTA 18-02 must provide additional protections to residents from larger
antennas attached to poles.

b.      However, as noted above, by reducing the heights of buildings to
which antennas of all sizes can be attached to 20 feet, ZTA 18-02 creates a
new loophole. Without providing the compensatory 60-foot dwelling setbacks,
any dwelling that neighbors a building that is eligible for the ZTA 18-02
relaxed building height attachment standard of 20 feet is at risk for the
adverse impacts of large and numerous antenna attachments, with no setback
at all. This needs to be fixed!

As is noted on slide 3, our ALT-ZTA adopts the CE’s proposed antenna size
chart. But our ALT-ZTA favors solutions that eliminate loopholes and protect
all Montgomery County residents.