Dear Council President Berliner and Members of the County Council,
With this written testimony, I am requesting that you withdraw or table the Resolution to approve Franchise Agreement for Use of Public Right-of-Way: Fiber Technologies Networks, LLC (a.k.a. Fibertech). The Council Packet concerning this item reveals that the County government and franchisees are continuing their collaborative pattern of circumventing fair and reasonable notice to the public. Burying obscured information in the legal section of a newspaper about the County’s intent to authorize occupancies of public rights-of-way is not fair notice when it is used as the exclusive way to notify abutting residents and property owners, especially in the middle of the summer. And I question whether the particular published notice(s) provided sufficient detail and clarity to fulfill the requirements of Section 49-20(a) of the County Code (example below).
I am also concerned that the proposed Fibertech franchise agreement may authorize the aerial (above ground) installations of telecommunications lines, which would now be in conflict with the County’s 2014 Zoning Ordinance. Section 3.6.7.A.2 provides that “Where a Distribution Line (Above Ground) is allowed as a limited use, only electric distribution lines are allowed.”
Moreover, I am very concerned at this particular time because fiber-optic cable franchisees such as Fibertech produce the backhaul for outdoor DAS (distributed antenna systems) and small cell facilities. See, for example, the 2015 press release from one franchisee, which touted that, through its Silver Spring project, “Small cell service can be delivered to buildings, light poles and other structures to provide the backhaul infrastructure for mobile networks, public safety networks and WiFi networks” (http://www.fibertower.com/news-1/2015/8/4/fibertower-releases-wireless-fiber-fact-sheet-for-montgomery-county-ultragig-partnership ).
The new Fibertech franchise agreement would authorize an essential component of DAS and small cell facilities that wireless infrastructure developers are planning for the County public rights-of-way in residential neighborhoods throughout Montgomery County. Wireless infrastructure developers plan to install many hundreds of cell towers and wireless antennas directly in front of homes throughout the County, skirting public notice, public input, and protections for residents. If the County Executive’s 2017 ZTA - “Telecommunications Towers – Limited Use” passes as proposed, with no substantive protections to residents added through other sections of the County Code and Regulations, then wireless infrastructure developers’ plans will be fully implemented – to the detriment of residents and neighborhoods.
Whether and how the franchise agreements, which authorize fiber-optic cable (backhaul) and other components of the wireless facilities in the public rights-of-way, are granted can make an enormous difference in the protections provided to residents. My September 5, 2017 e-mail correspondence to County Executive Leggett, on which the Council was copied, details the very serious problems with the aforementioned ZTA. And, it explains the need to revise the franchise agreement sections of Road Code. New franchise agreements and the franchise approval process need improvements to:
1) Better protect neighborhoods;
2) Require mailed notice to residents/property owners and require posted signage at affected locations;
3) Hold the franchisees to fair service throughout the entire County; and
4) Ensure public hearings and Council committee reviews.
For further details on the problems with the existing franchise agreements and approval process, see the February issue of the MCCF Civic News, page 5: http://montgomerycivic.org/files/CFN201702.pdf .
The old Fibertech franchise agreement expired in 2016. Certainly there is no urgency for a new franchise agreement at this time. So please act to correct the problems with the franchise agreement and process before entertaining the Resolution:
Withdraw or Table the Fibertech Resolution;
Correct the deficits that exist in the County’s Franchise Agreements and Sections 49-20 and 49-21 of the Road Code; and
Coordinate these legislative changes with the CE’s ZTA (referenced above) and other needed companion legislation to that ZTA, as described in my September 5 correspondence (also referenced above).
Please begin with Fibertech: Improve the processes in the Road Code and establish a new model franchise agreement; establish systems that will fairly and appropriately serve the public interest.
Sincerely,
Sue Present
http://www.thesentinel.com/mont/images/pdf/2017_Edition/07_2017_MCEdition/07202017_LegalsMC-L01.pdf
The County and franchisees collaborate
ReplyDeleteTo circumvent and get the public irate
With both convolution and circumlocution
Defying resolution and evading solution.
The rush was to make sure the electeds "notified" the public during summer vacation, with only 9 days to comment. I have never seen such a short comment period.
ReplyDelete