How MCPS Superintendents Fib to the Board of Education or How a New High School will Get a New Cell Tower at the Front Entrance.

 May 13, 2021 Update:  As noted in our original blog post below, the memorandum from Superintendent Jack Smith to the Montgomery County Board of Education was not factual.  The Montgomery County Transmission Facility Coordinating Group had NOT approved the placement of a new cell tower at the Woodward High School site on Old Georgetown Road.  

This agenda item was pulled from the May 11th Board of Education Agenda during the meeting because the memorandum from Superintendent Jack Smith was not correct. 

On today's Board of Education Agenda is a perfect example of how MCPS Superintendents fib to the Montgomery County Board of Education.  

The Board of Education members are well aware of these continuing fibs and approve of this method of conducting public school business.

 Board of Education members are "trained" to not question what they are told by the superintendent and by MCPS staff.  The "job" of Montgomery County Board of Education members is to be a rubber stamp for the actions of superintendents. 

Today's example:  Superintendent Jack Smith wants to build a new cell tower at the new high school site on Old Georgetown Road.  In order to do that, the superintendent has to bypass the existing Board policy and procedure that calls for the Board of Education to approve new cell towers. Superintendent Smith doesn't want to put this matter before the Board of Education because for the past 10 years all new cell tower proposals have been rejected by parents and community members in Montgomery County. 

Here are the steps involved in bypassing the existing policy and sneaking in a new cell tower:

1. Do not give the Board of Education members the actual documents they are approving!  Just write a memo (see images) that refers to documents, but gives no details.

2.  Fib about the history of the issue.  In today's Board memo, Superintendent Jack Smith says that the Board of Education previously "entered into a telecommunications lease."  That never happened. The Board of Education never entered into cell tower leases.  Cell tower leases were all executed by previous Superintendent Jerry Weast without Board votes.

3. Mention an internal approval process but give NO DETAILS.  This memo says that MCPS DFM (Department of Facilities Management) staff reviewed a plan and found it acceptable.  Where is the plan? Why can't the Board of Education see the plan? What about parents and neighbors? They haven't seen the plan. Why can't they see the plan?  By referencing some vague approval it sounds as if the plans are just fine and no one should question them.  

4. Claim the Montgomery County Transmission Facility Coordinating Group (TFCG) has approved the new cell tower when they actually haven't.   This particular cell tower is actually listed as PENDING on the TFCG website.  The proposal has not been approved. 

5. Instead of using the word "new" call the new cell tower "longer-term."  That will trick the Board of Education members into thinking they aren't really giving the Superintendent the power to erect a new cell tower.  

The May 11, 2021, memorandum shown above from Superintendent Jack Smith is an excellent example of how to get around Board of Education policies and procedures, keep Board members clueless as to what is being approved, and eliminate public notice of commercial construction projects on public school land. 

Montgomery County Council President Admits Public Hearings are Staged

Thanks to County Council President Hans Riemer for admitting in print what the Council has been doing for years.  County Council public hearings are not public at all, but staged to support the pre-determined Council position.  Likewise, County agencies take their lead from the County Council and exclude public comment in favor of industry representatives speaking freely and often at Tower Committee meetings.   

...Council President Hans Riemer (D-at large) said members from his staff picked the people who testified at the meeting based upon the analysis of the bill they gave in their requests to speak at the public hearing.

“We wanted people who had some content... Those who were here had written us extensive emails, you know, even providing a thorough analysis of the issue, so we felt that they would be constructive and helpful.”...

...But even when members of the public can ask to speak, it is not an absolute right.

“Just because you request does not mean you we will be accepted,” Reimer said...

http://www.thesentinel.com/mont/news/local/item/6240-ficker-banned-from-speaking-claims-bias

Request for MoCo Tower Committee to Table Inaccurate, Incomplete Applications (Including Blair HS) and to Include Public Comment in Process as Per MoCo Regulation COMCOR 02.58E.01.05(b)

Today, the Montgomery County Transmission Facility Coordinator Group (Tower Committee) is meeting at 2 PM to consider a number of applications from cell tower vendors.  Among the applications to be considered today are a number of very large radio/cell towers on or near fire stations around the County.  

These applications appear to be going before the Tower Committee without public notice, review or input.  The Parents' Coalition made these applications public just yesterday.  Why didn't Montgomery County make these applications public?  

In reviewing these applications we have discovered that one of these new very tall towers is slated to be constructed on the Montgomery Blair High School baseball field.  To date, no school communities have supported the construction of a cell tower on public school land.  Many MCPS schools have been very vocal about their opposition to these commercial construction projects on school land.  What is the position of the Blair High School parents?  What is the position of the neighbors of Blair High School?  

Below is an e-mail sent today from Sue Present to the Tower Committee asking that these applications be tabled due to inaccurate information, incomplete information, and due to the absence of community notice and opportunity to comment as per Montgomery County Regulations. 




From: suepresent 
Date: Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 11:06 AM
Subject: PLEASE POSTPONE REVIEW OF ALL MCRCS APPLICATIONS FOR NEW TOWERS/MONOPOLES
To: "Williams, Marjorie"
Cc: "Schaeffer, Matt" , "Bowser, Ted" , "Niblock, David" , frookard@wsscwater.com, Gregory.russ@montgomeryplanning.org, "Williamson, Thomas A." , Boyd_Lawrence@mcpsmd.org, Ike Leggett , "Miller, Judy" , WPCA , "Morgan, Carl" , "Segal, Sonny" , "Royalty, Clifford"

Dear Margie,

Please POSTPONE THE REVIEW OF ALL MCRCS APPLICATIONS FOR NEW TOWERS AND MONOPOLES.

I appreciate your having released the applications for the new radio communications towers, yesterday. There has been woefully insufficient time to thoroughly examine these applications, which are on today’s agenda. However, in focusing my attention on TFCG application 201712-05, the one that is identified for Fire Station 16, I have already discovered significant flaws/concerns.

1)      Co-location Opportunity. The applicants identify the co-location alternatives that they dismissed within a 2-mile radius, and explain their rationale. They identify a lattice tower registered to MNCPPC, which the application says is 265’ in height, and explain that they dismiss it because as a radio broadcast tower it is “hot.”

Presumably, this is the 247’-high (not 265’ high) radio broadcast tower that is located at Sligo Creek Golf Course. It is the tower at which Verizon received the TFCG’s “recommendation of application 201612-05 to attach twelve 72'-high panel antennas at the 120' level, and the Planning Board subsequently approved the installation. Thus, for Verizon, the radio tower being “hot” was not an issue.

As is explained in the applicant response dated December 13, 2017, to meet the applicant’s need for this proposed radio communications, the attachments are needed at a height on the structure of 180’.  Under the circumstances, this applicant provides inadequate clarification as to why it cannot attach at the equivalent height (which I presume to be approximately 197’ on the nearby 247’ Sligo Creek Golf Course radio tower) when Verizon has already demonstrated its ability to attach to the Sligo Golf Course radio tower.

2)      Land Authorizations. In my previous communication to the Tower Committee, dated December 29, 2017, I alerted the Committee to the restrictive covenant governing Blair Local Park (and attached a copy). At the time of that message I was uncertain of the proposed location. It now seems evident that the plan is to locate the very large monopole on Blair Local Park. But, as previously explained, the restrictive covenant prohibits the use of the Blair Local Park land for any use other than Public Open Space. The proposed radio tower use is thus prohibited without modifications to the restrictive covenant. 

In addition, I raised concerns about easements. The application (overall site plan C-2) references “existing easement.” The easements, which of course were improperly conferred with the original Nextel/Sprint lease, indicated that they would cease when the telecommunications facilities became “obsolete.” The telecommunications facilities became obsolete when the lease was terminated and all telecommunications facilities were removed from the property, and the structure took on the sole purpose of a light standard, in 2015. There are no current easements in the County Land Records. I assert that without proper State authorization, any easements that would facilitate a communications tower would contravene the restrictive covenant.

3)      Monopole Height. The applicant’s justification – identifying other prospective users and the wishes of the manager of the land (for whom there would be greater revenue generated from the higher tower) – is inadequate for the monopole height of 195’. The facts demonstrate that the applicant’s needs can be met with a structure no higher than 180’ in height.

Although speculative, the additional information provided in this application that supports the State Highway Administration’s interest in communication space at this approximate location should bolster further exploration of siting on the substantial SHA parcel that abuts Fire Station 16 and Blair Local Park, between University Blvd. E. and the beltway, or upon other even more appropriate State Highway land.

Based upon these comments and those that you have received from a few other members of the public, it appears that the Tower Coordinator did not adhere to COMCOR 02.58E.01.05 in “recommending” to the TFCG the location of Blair Local Park for this monopole. Adequate consideration has not been given, per that regulation, for:

·        zoning standards for siting a telecommunications transmission facility;

·        effect of the telecommunications transmission facility on the land owning agency;

·        co-location options; and

·        potential impacts on the surrounding area(s).

And, you have received direct comments from only a few members of the public. That is because there has been no public process of notification and public input for almost all of these proposed facilities)as noted in my previous message, the land owner(s) failed to follow COMCOR 02.58E.01.05(b).

So, I urge the Tower Committee to POSTPONE the review of TFCG application 201612-05 and of all the applications on today’s agenda for NEW MCRCS Telecommunications Towers/Monopoles to provide for the Land Owning Agencies, the Tower Coordinator, and the Tower Committee to adhere to all regulations articulated in COMCOR 02.58E. Postponing these applications would provide the applicant a necessary do-over. The County needs to provide the surrounding communities where these facilities are proposed with appropriate due process, and to treat them with respect, too.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sue Present

How Accurate is MoCo Tower Committee Approval Process? They think Board of Ed. owns Fire Station?

The Montgomery County Transmission Facility Coordinating Group (Tower Committee) has just released their January 3, 2018, meeting agenda.

According to the Agenda, the Tower Committee will be approving without discussion a proposal to change the antennas on a monopole located at the fire station at 12100 Darnestown Road and owned by the "Board of Education of Montgomery County."

When did the Board of Education acquire a fire station?  According to the public land records for this location, the land is owned by Montgomery County, not the Board of Education.

How accurate is the rest of the Tower Committee's review of cell tower proposals for Montgomery County if they are not even clear on who owns fire station property? 

Answer: The Tower Committee review process is simply a rubber stamp and errors are frequently found in the submissions.   

How is the public to be notified of cell tower construction projects or changes if the only public notice is from a last minute Agenda that is not even proofread for accuracy?  

http://montgomerycountymd.gov/cable/Resources/Files/Towers/agendas/2018/1-3-18_agenda.pdf

New Legislation Calling for More Transparency in School Cell Towers in Prince George's County

Delegate Alonzo Washington is supporting a Bill on School Cell Towers this session.

This Bill would would ensure that if a cell tower company wants to put a cell tower on a Prince George's County School they must hold a public hearing at the school before the cell tower is cleared to be built...

https://nocelltoweratpgcpsschools.blogspot.com/2017/11/new-legislation-calling-for-more.html

MoCo Tower Committee Approved Unsigned Application #rubberstamp @NorthwestJags

On May 19, 2017, MCPS Chief Operating Officer Andrew Zuckerman wrote that, "Nothing has been approved at this time by the school district." with regard to the application for a cell tower to be placed on top of Northwest High School.

Mr. Zuckerman was correct.

In fact, the Application for the Northwest High School cell tower was unsigned when it went before the Montgomery County Tower Committee two days earlier on May 17, 2017.

The Montgomery County Tower Committee was well aware that the application did not have the approval of the Property Owner, but approved the application anyway.

Below is a picture of the signature page for the Northwest High School cell tower application that was submitted to the Montgomery County Tower Committee for approval.

See the last blank line for the signature of the Property Owner?  In this instance the Property Owner is the Montgomery County BOARD OF EDUCATION.  The line is blank, as are all the lines above.  No one signed off on this application, yet the Montgomery County Tower Committee approved it anyway.

What exactly does the Montgomery County Tower Committee actually do when an application for a cell tower is submitted to them for their review and approval?  

Application for cell tower on the roof of Northwest High School.  

Montgomery Co. Tower Committee Set to Rubber Stamp Cell Towers Today, Including Northwest High School Cell Tower

COMCOR 02.58E.01.06.c.3. provides for the Tower Committee to “review other relevant information” when it reviews TFCG applications. Due to the size of the agenda, my limited access to the records, and time constraints, I was only able to conduct a limited review of the records. However, I did identify a number of issues that are germane to the Tower Committee’s review. As a result, I am providing the following relevant information about applications that are on today’s agenda.

1)            Each of the following TFCG applications fails to meet the TFCG requirement of documenting all legal authorizations for its proposed attachments to be affixed to the structure and/or occupy the intended space, and is therefore deficient. In 2011, Mitsuko Herrera filed Reply Comments with the FCC, representing you, CIO/Director Emanuel, and herself. Page 19 of those Reply Comments discusses various reasons that the Tower Committee rejects TFCG applications. Reasons include when “the property owner has not agreed to the lease” or “approved the attachment.” See https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7021712395.pdf . The Tower Committee practice of rejecting applications that lack proper authorizations is consistent with the TFCG Regulations. It serves to minimize impacts upon citizens and surrounding areas. It also limits the impacts upon other County agencies, which can prevent administrative congestion, and thus, streamline the processing of deserving applications. Please reject the following applications for being deficient for lacking needed authorizations for attachment:

A.           agenda item 3. – application #201704-14

B.           agenda item 4.– application #201704-15

C.           agenda item 5.– application #204704-16

D.           agenda item 7.– application #204704-29

E.            agenda item 14.– application #204704-36

F.            agenda item 18.– application #204704-40

G.           agenda item 20.– application #204704-43

H.           agenda item 21.– application #201705-01

I.             agenda item 26.– application #201705-14

J.            agenda item 39.– application #201609-10

K.            agenda item 40.– application #201609-11

L.            agenda item 41.– application #201609-13

M.          agenda item 43.– application #201609-15

N.           agenda item 45.– application #201609-17

O.           agenda item 46.– application #201609-18

P.            agenda item 47.– application #201609-19

Q.           agenda item 48.– application #201609-22

R.           agenda item 50.– application #201609-24

S.            agenda item 51.– application #201609-25

T.            agenda item 54.– application #201609-28

U.           agenda item 57.– application #201611-05

V.           agenda item 59.– application #201704-17

W.          agenda item 60.– application #201704-19

X.            agenda item 61.– application #201704-20

Y.            agenda item 62.– application #201704-23

Z.            agenda item 63.– application #201704-26

AA.         agenda item 64.– application #201704-27

BB.         agenda item 65.– application #201704-28

2)            All of the Technology MD Network Co/Mobilitie applications that appear on the regular agenda, agenda items 39 through 57 are deficient. Each of these applications says, “see construction drawings,” to provide the reviewing agency with more complete information. However, in each application, the drawings that are attached are not construction drawings. The attached documents, by their own admission, are unreliable because, as noted, they are only drafts. The documents rely upon no structural analysis. Also, the depictions provide are misleading because they are not to scale, and notations on the drawings themselves indicate that the drawings should not be relied upon. In addition, these drawings are not signed or sealed, and in most cases, no attribution is even provided. Per Maryland Article-Business and Professions, §14-103(a), “drawings shall be signed, sealed, and dated by the professional engineer who prepared or approved the documents.” Please reject all of the Technology MD Network Co/Mobilitie applications that appear on the regular agenda, agenda items 39 through 57.

3)            All of the Technology MD Network Co/Mobilitie applications that appear on the regular agenda, agenda items 39 through 57, indicate plans to attach signage to their sites that would be deceptive and represent the type of subterfuge that the media have reported Mobilitie as engaging in throughout the United States. The applications provide intent to mislead the public by identifying the owner as “Interstate Transport and Broadband.” Please reject all of the Technology MD Network Co/Mobilitie applications that appear on the regular agenda, agenda items 39 through 57.

4)            The following Technology MD Network Co/Mobilitie applications for having provided inaccurate or contradictory information about pole construction, which appear as agenda items 40, 41, 43, 44, 50, and 51. Please reject these applications.

A.           201609-10 – identified as steel, but appears to be bronze. (This application also appears to have misidentified the pole owner in the application.)

B.           201609-11 – identified as steel, but appears to be spun aluminum

C.           201609-13 – identified as steel and as concrete; appears to be spun aluminum

D.           201609-15 – identified as steel, but appears to be spun aluminum

E.            201609-16 – identified as both wood and steel

F.            201609-24 – identified as steel, but appears to be spun aluminum

G.           201609-25 – identified as both bronze and steel

5)            Several applications site facilities next to residential uses, even when there are alternatives for co-locations at the approximate locations that would not abut residential uses. Per COMCOR 02.58E.01.05, the Tower Coordinator’s Application Review must be based, in part, on “co-location options” and “potential impacts on the surrounding area.” And this regulation was adopted, among other reasons, to “minimize adverse impacts upon citizens.” Please table the following applications for their further modification and/or review or reject them.

A.           Agenda item 47. - 201609-19 –The applicant states that the utility pole is in the Montgomery County PROW. But this pole is behind the sidewalk, and it may be on the property owner’s land. The proposed location is a short distance between the main artery, New Hampshire Avenue, and Martin Luther King Park. Surely, Mobilitie could re-evaluate its co-location options and select another utility pole or other site that would not have such an adverse impact upon citizens.

B.           Agenda item 48. - 201609-22 – This attachment abuts a single family residence in an R-60 zone. On the opposite side of the street and very nearby the proposed pole, the Washington  Metropolitan Transit Authority is the owner of a parcel of property (District - 13 Account Number - 02064398) where there is also a Pepco pole. That nonresidential use is more a more appropriate property upon which to co-locate the small cell site, especially in this neighborhood of small, R-60 properties.

C.           Agenda item 60. - 201704-19, item 61. - 201704-20, and item 62. - 201704-23 – With a little effort, T-Mobile could diminish the effects of its DAS poles on this residential community. On Piney Branch, it could, for example, shift down a short way toward the gas station. On Arliss, for example, it could instead of replacing the pole in the sidewalk, in front of the apartments (which could increase barriers to persons with disabilities), it could replace the pole nearby, which is in front of the public library. And, for example, rather than replacing a pole abutting the apartments on Gilbert Place, a pole could instead be replaced at the commercial area that is in back of the apartments, which fronts on University Blvd, E.

6)            There are some typographical errors in the agenda and in the applications. Some of these typos are insignificant, such as misidentified location nodes, and misspelling “Derwood.” However in the case of agenda item 47, the application and agenda incorrectly identify the cross street as Kenwood, which is a street in Bethesda. And in the case of agenda item 63, there are two roads that have the name University Blvd: University Blvd E. and University Blvd W.; failing to specify is problematic and makes the address incomplete.

A.           201609-19 – The street coordinates were misidentified in the application and on the agenda. The correct streets are Jackson Rd. @ Kerwood Rd., Silver Spring.

B.           201704-26 – 925 University Blvd, Silver Spring – There are two University Blvd. Without specifying East or West, this address is incomplete.

7)  COMCOR 02.58E.01.05.b. Requires the Board of Education as the land-owning agency for Northwest High School, which is agenda item59, application 201704-17, to:

               1.   Review the site application in accordance with the agency's siting standards and policy.

                              2.   Receive and evaluate public input as part of the agency's decision process.

The Board of Education has not done this. Please reject this application.

Thank you for considering these issues.

Sue Present

Amid serious concerns, Tower Committee Meeting Postponed #NorthwestHS @NorthwestJags

Guest: MoCo Tower Committee Withholds Report Prior to Wed. Meeting & Vote on Cell Tower Application. End Free Do-Overs on Cell Tower Applications.

 On Wednesday, April 5, 2017, the Montgomery County Transmission Facility Coordinating Group (TFCG) will take up a number of applications, including the one shown below.  Comments from Sue Present concerning this application review process below. 

I ask the Tower Committee to “NOT RECOMMEND” TFCG application 201609-12. I appreciate your very promptly facilitating my request to provide me access to this application. Yet, I am frustrated and disappointed that you have denied me access to the corresponding Tower Coordinator’s Report and Recommendation, which the Committee is scheduled to review at its Wednesday meeting. Perhaps the Tower Coordinator materials, which apparently have been shared with the applicant (per COMCOR 02.58E.01.05.a.3.) would have shed light on why the Tower Coordinator is advising the Tower Committee’s favorable action on this application. However, based upon my examination of the application materials, I make my request that the Tower Committee “NOT RECOMMEND” the application for the following reasons.

1.      The TFCG application is defective.

a.      The application’s attached plans are only drafts. They are identified as “preliminary.” Furthermore, these documents are missing the signature and seal of the professional engineer that prepared them.  As a result, these plans should be disqualified from consideration. Per the Maryland Article - Business Occupations and Professions, §14–103.(a), “All engineering documents prepared in connection with the alteration, construction, design, or repair of a building, structure, building engineering system and its components, machine, equipment, process, works, subsystem, project, public or private utility, or facility in the built or economic environment, including an engineering document prepared at the request of the State or a political subdivision of the State, where the skills of a professional engineer are required, shall be signed, sealed, and dated by the professional engineer who prepared or approved the documents.” (emphasis added)

b.      The application documents are inaccurate, contradictory, and deceptive.

                                          i.     The application form says that the applicant will install equipment as an “attachment to the existing steel light pole.” The supporting application materials contradict the application statement. Sheet T-1, in the Project Description, says the pole is an “existing concrete light pole.” The Pole Elevation on Sheet EV-1, a Plumbing Diagram note on Sheet PL-1, and the Equipment Mounting Details on EQ-2 all say it is a “concrete pole.” However, the County’s DOT website suggests that the material of this existing pole is “spun aluminum.” See https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/DOT-Traffic/Resources/Files/PDF/SLspecs/spun_aluminum_pole.pdf . By the way, this pole is described on the TFCG’s interactive map (for the public) as a “wooden utility pole.”

                                         ii.     The plans reference a separate “structural analysis” (which was not included in the application materials that I was permitted to review). If the structural analysis has relied upon the use of the wrong pole material, such as concrete or steel when spun aluminum would be utilized, then the referenced structural analysis is unreliable.

                                        iii.     The applicant’s photo simulation and diagrams of the equipment attached to the pole. But some are “not to scale” and others are mis-scaled. The equipment has been under-scaled relative to the size of the pole. As a result, this TMNC/Mobilitie application deceptively diminishes the adverse visual impact of this equipment, most of which is significantly wider than the existing tapered pole. (The afore-referenced MC-DOT specs state, “The spun aluminum, tapered streetlight pole shall have a round, circular, cross-section with an outside base diameter of seven (7) inches, and with a uniform taper decreasing from the base at a rate of 0.1 inch (minimum) to 0.14 inch (maximum) inches per foot of height.”)

Here is an example of actual Mobilitie attachments on a light pole. However, this example does not include the 13”w x 19”h meter proposed in the TFCG application. Source:http://wireless.blog.law/2016/05/27/anatomy-mobilitie-site-sprint/

c.      The application, as proposed, may accommodate two carriers. See page 21 of 33, which provides information on the Radio Specifications: Number of LTE Carriers – 2.  If the expectation would be for one or more future co-locators to add equipment to the facility, then information should be included in the application to simulate the fully loaded facility.

2.      Coverage statements in the TFCG application are problematic.

a.      There is no wireless carrier serving as a co-applicant. The information in the attached “Memo in Response to RFT SENT ON 01.31.17” does not sufficiently clarify/resolve this issue.  It can be factually accurate that Sprint is a Mobilitie, LLC client, and it can also be accurate that Mobilitie is aware that Sprint has transmission needs (or wishes) in this geographic vicinity. Regardless, however, there is no evidence that Sprint has retained TMNC/Mobilitie to act on Sprint’s behalf to pursue transmission needs at this location. Thus, perhaps TMNC/Mobilitie is doing nothing more than speculating to attract the business of Sprint and/or other carriers, and to support its own business model. Acquiring and occuping any wireless space for that purpose – especially a public space -- should not be “recommended” by the Tower Committee.

b.      The application indicates that it would provide coverage over approximately a 0.1 mile radius. It is noteworthy that the pending Crown Castle/Verizon application 201608-28 is within this radius. However, the “RF Propagation for Current Target Area” coverage map, provided in the “revised 09/09/16” version of the subject application, identified as revised 09/09/16 anticipates far greater actual coverage than the 0.1 mile radius. (The map has neither been updated in the most recent edition of the application, nor rescinded, and so I presume it is still relevant.)  This coverage map places six pending Crown Castle/Verizon applications within the subject applicant’s identified coverage area, with the applicant’s site in the approximate center. The Crown Castle/Verizon pending applications are:          1)  201608-20

                              2)  201608-26

                              3)  201608-28

                              4)  201608-37

                              5)  201610-13

                              6)  201610-16

Both TMNC/Mobilitie and Crown Castle have asserted that their facilities could accommodate various carriers. Therefore, without a carrier co-applicant, there is no substantiation that TMNC/Mobilitie is doing anything beyond engaging incompetitive jockeying for transmission space.

3.      The TFCG has an obligation under Sec. 2.58E of the County Code to minimize the adverse impact to citizens.

a.      The application seeks an unnecessary visual intrusion upon the residents and their property owner. As you are aware, Montgomery County has asserted in Comments to the FCC that, in general, visible wireless telecommunications facilities of all types and sizes, including small cell facilities in public rights-of-way, adversely affect residential property values. At the approximate proposed location, where this applicant seeks the attachment of its antennas and equipment, both sides of Crystal Rock Drive have identical County light poles. So does the cross street, Century Boulevard. But Mobilitie has selected a County light pole that abuts a residential use (garden apartments) rather than any of the County light poles that abut the commercial use on the opposite side of the street, or any of the County light poles that are on Century Blvd., which is the cross street where the County light poles in the public right-of-way abut the Montgomery County Police Department. This suggests that the Tower Coordinator has not adequately engaged with this applicant to flesh out “site suitability and co-location options,” per COMCOR 02.58E.01.05.a.3(a).

b.      The dearth of information in this application demonstrating the visual impact of co-locations suggests that the visual impact of co-locations was not considered by the Tower Coordinator when making recommending this application. As mentioned above, if, as it appears, it is the applicant’s intent to accommodate one or more co-locators, then this application is also missing simulations that show the visual effects of the facility, fully loaded. As you are aware, Montgomery County asserted in Comments to the FCC, “it is necessary to presume and consider full utilization of rights granted by virtue of a particular authorization.” Thus, the Tower Committee’s review and vote on whether or not to “Recommend” must consider the impact of any prospective co-location installations.

4.      The contact information for signage in the TFCG application is deceptive.

The Pole Mounted Signs proposed in the application, found on Sheet EQ-2, rather than identifying the true owner, only identify Interstate Transport and Broadband. This is deceptive and represents the kind of subterfuge that the media have reported Mobilitie as engaging in throughout the United States. Any signs should transparently identify this owner, such as “Mobilitie,” “Mobilitie DBA Technology MD Network Company,” or “TMNC/Mobilitie.”

I have herein identified several reasons why the Tower Committee should “NOT RECOMMEND” the application; I urge the Committee to act accordingly. I ask the Tower Committee to take notice that the application includes two revisions to the application and the above-referenced 03-31-17 TFCG memo and Mobilitie replies. And I ask the Committee to recognize that the County has itself provided detailed accounts of the lengthy experiences working with Mobilitie in its March 8, 2017 Comments to the FCC (See pp. 12 – 21,https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/103091020720870/COMMENTS-Montgomery%20County.pdf ). In sum, Montgomery County’s expenditure of resources to review this and other TMNC/Mobilitie small cell applications on the “taxpayers’ dime” have been excessive.

Frankly, I object to the existing process, which uses taxpayer dollars to underwrite the industry’s TFCG application reviews. For the FY-18 budget and beyond, I will urge the County Council to take measures to ensure that all costs associated with TFCG reviews are borne by the applicants, rather than continuing to approve general revenues to support application reviews in the TFCG Budget and through the County Budget as a whole.

But I particularly object to supporting this applicant’s waste and abuse of the TFCG application process. Approximately seven years ago, I heard the announcement about the Tower Committee’s plans to end the free application do-overs. The industry has been on notice for a long time. See ~min. 1:02:15 – 1:04 at http://mncppc.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=7&clip_id=505. Therefore, if there would be a decision to postpone action on this application for further corrective measures (initiated by the TFCG or by the applicant), then I ask that the Tower Committee require the application process to start anew with a new application fee. Also, it seems likely that the errors that I have pointed out in this application repeat themselves in other TMNC/Mobilitie applications. As a result, I ask for the same thing – a fresh start, not more free passes -- for any other pending applications where further corrective measures would be needed.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sue Present