City Council Planning Sessions

MEMORANDUM TO: Record FROM: Susan Bishel, Public Relations Coordinator SUBJECT: May 9, 2016 City Council Planning Session Minutes DATE: May 10, 2016 CC: Mayor and City Council, City Manager, City Clerk, Department Heads The Planning Session took place in the Council Chambers, Wheaton City Hall, 303 W. Wesley St., Wheaton, Illinois. Those attending the Planning Session included: Councilwoman Fitch, Councilman Prendiville, Councilman Rutledge, Councilman Saline, Councilman Scalzo and Mayor Pro Tem Suess. Mayor Gresk was absent. Also in attendance were City Manager Dzugan, Assistant City Manager Duguay, Director of Planning & Economic Development Kozik, Director of Public Works Laoang, Director of Engineering Redman, Director of Finance Lehnhardt, Senior Project Engineer Lagvankar and Public Relations Coordinator Bishel. The session began at 7:06 p.m. following the conclusion of a public hearing and concluded at 8:23 p.m. The following items were discussed: I. Call to Order The Wheaton City Council Planning Session was called to order at 7:06 p.m. by Mayor Pro Tem Suess. II. Approval of April 11, 2016 Planning Session Minutes The Council approved the April 11, 2016 Planning Session Minutes. III. Public Comment There were no public comments. IV. Small Cell and Distributed Systems Code Amendments City Manager Dzugan reviewed the work that City staff and the City Attorney have done to address new cellular technology infrastructure and a proposed ordinance placing limits on what equipment can be placed on public property. He reviewed some of the types of new technology being introduced by the telecommunications industry, including Small Cell and Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS). City Attorney Knippen stated Federal regulations under the U.S. Telecommunications Act give local government the authority to have some control over the location of wireless facilities. Also included in the regulations is the stipulation that fees charged cannot be used as a revenue source. Other legislation requires local utility poles to be available for Small Cell installations, as long as the utility pole is structurally sound and the utility is paid a small fee. However, City Attorney Knippen stated there is other legislation currently pending that could take away municipalities’ ability to control zoning of these devices. City Attorney Knippen stated the City is proposing a requirement for telecommunications companies to apply for a general City license to enter the right-of-way, and then applying for a site-specific permit. The Engineering Department would determine if the site is lawful under the City’s zoning ordinance, which would protect the City’s zoning and planning rights and the right- of-way. The ordinance would ensure that Small Cell equipment would be at least 500 feet apart and that there could not be more than one box on a utility pole. City staff believes that because there is so much competition among wireless companies to provide more service to customers, without any restrictions, telecommunications companies could try to install many of these devices within the same block. The proposed license agreement is very protective of the City to ensure the City’s systems are not compromised. In response to Council questions, City Attorney Knippen stated co-location means putting the Small Cell infrastructure on an existing utility pole or public right-of-way structure, whereas co- use would mean more than one company sharing a device to provide cellular service. City Manager Dzugan stated the DAS sites may be able to be shared among companies, whereas the Small Cell would probably not be shared. City Attorney Knippen answered a Council question by stating Verizon had applied to install Small Cell equipment near the College Avenue train station, and the City provided them with a license agreement to complete. In response to a Council question, City Manager Dzugan stated the proposed ordinance would require the new equipment to be placed on an existing structure or utility pole, and would prohibit creation of new utility poles. In response to Council questions, City Attorney Knippen stated it is difficult to determine at this point if companies would have a problem providing service in neighborhoods without above- ground utility poles because the City does not have enough information about the engineering requirements for Small Cell infrastructure. City Attorney Knippen stated if the City Council is interested in adopting an ordinance related to this matter, the City would hold a public hearing once the proposed ordinance is finalized. City Council members asked that the City communicate more information about this matter to the public before a public hearing takes place. The Council directed City staff to move forward with the public hearing process. V. 2015 Pavement Management Report – Update Director of Engineering Redman stated City staff identified a software issue with the computer program used to evaluate the City’s pavement condition. Once the vendor confirmed the error, the software company corrected the results, which show a pavement condition of 61.8 instead of the previously reported value of 68.7. The corrected rating does not indicate a drop in actual pavement condition over the 2012 pavement rating of 68, as the software issue also affected the 2012 results. The actual rating in 2012 would be similar to the current corrected value of 61.8. 5/9/16 Planning Session 2 Director of Engineering Redman stated the corrected rating still falls within the Council’s goal range, however it is lower in the range. City staff sought feedback from the Council on whether they would like to increase spending to reach a higher pavement condition rating. The cost differential would be approximately $1 million more per year than the $2.5 million budgeted per year to reach a rating of 68 over a number of years. Additionally, as part of the 5-year Capital Plan, it was recommended to establish separate expenses ($1 million) for street reconstruction above and beyond the Annual Road Program. In response to Council questions, Director of Engineering Redman stated the road program addresses roads below a rating of 55, and roads are considered to need reconstruction when they fall below 25. If roads are periodically resurfaced, they have an average lifespan of approximately 60 years. Director of Engineering Redman also reviewed the backlog of roads requiring reconstruction. Approximately 14% of the City’s streets fall into this category. City staff provided a map of City street conditions. Because the Annual Road Program doesn’t address this backlog of streets, City staff suggests setting aside additional funding for reconstruction to start addressing the backlog. In response to Council questions, Director of Engineering Redman stated some of the roads in the lowest condition may have problems because of poor drainage or because many years ago they were not built on suitable base material. The City Council expressed an interest in increasing the spending for the Annual Road Program to $3.5 million for the next fiscal year to improve the average pavement rating. City Manager Dzugan said staff would include both the additional funding for the Road Program and funding for reconstruction efforts as part of the 2017/18 5-year capital improvement plan to be presented as part of the 2017/18 budget process. City Manager Dzugan stated the City may also look to the Public Works Department to take on more resurfacing work to see how this can improve the pavement scores. VI. City Council/Staff Comments There were no City Council/Staff comments. VII. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:23 p.m. 5/9/16 Planning Session 3