Memorandum

City of Lawrence

City Manager’s Office

 

TO:

David L. Corliss, City Manager

 

FROM:

Diane Stoddard, Assistant City Manager

 

CC:

Cynthia Boecker, Assistant City Manager

 

Date:

 

February 11, 2009

RE:

Lawrence Freenet Request for Downtown Installation of Wireless Devices on City Light Poles

 

Please place the following item on the agenda for the City Commission for consideration:

 

Receive staff report on the Lawrence Freenet request to install wireless devices on city light poles in the downtown area and provide direction as appropriate. 

 

Background:

In December, the City received a request from Lawrence Freenet to install wireless data equipment on ten of the City’s light poles in downtown Lawrence in the locations outlined in Freenet’s letter.  As a result of this installation, Freenet plans to offer free wireless services for downtown businesses to opt to provide their customers via free daily pass cards.  Businesses participation would be voluntary.  Additionally, the installation will reduce five of the existing solar powered newspaper boxes housing wireless equipment in the downtown area. 

 

At its December 30, 2008 meeting, the City Commission received the request and referred the item to staff for a report. 

 

Since the request was submitted, City staff has been reviewing the issues involved, sought clarification from Freenet, and held a meeting with Freenet officials.  As a result, additional letters with further clarifications were submitted by Freenet on January 19, 2009 and February 4, 2009.  Also, photos of the proposed installation were submitted to provide a visual example of how the installation would appear. 

 

Several years ago, Freenet requested similar installation in the downtown area at the same time it requested permission of the City to place wireless units on city facilities in other parts of the City.  While the City Commission at that time approved the installation in other areas, it did not approve the installation downtown.  There were concerns about the size of the units and the potential impact downtown.  Freenet reports that the units being proposed at this time are smaller than the units considered several years ago. 

 

Issues: 

There are several issues that the City Commission may wish to consider regarding Freenet’s request.  

 

Stealth:  Freenet has indicated that it has made strides to have this equipment as stealthy as possible.  However, the units will be visible on the light poles and may have an aesthetic impact on downtown.  As Freenet points out, the current newspaper stands also have a potential aesthetic impact and they plan to reduce these stands by five if the downtown installation is approved.  If there are additional companies that wish to make a similar request of the City in the future to place equipment on the light poles, this may further impact aesthetics.  City staff suggests that a way to address this would be to require more stealth approaches in the event another company would make a similar request in the future. 

 

Agreement:  City staff would suggest that an agreement with Freenet regarding the use of the City’s light pole infrastructure be developed if the City Commission wishes to proceed with the request.  The agreement would touch on various issues, such as details about how the units could be tied into the electrical source.  City staff wishes to ensure that no equipment would interfere with any of the City’s light poles or traffic equipment downtown. Also, the City would need to allow for occasional downtime of the electrical source for maintenance activities.  The cost of the electricity is very minor.  Westar estimates that the 7 watts of continuous power necessary for each unit would equate to $5 annually.  The agreement could address requiring additional stealth measures in the event that any future similar request is granted in the future.

 

Historic Resources Commission:  If the City Commission wishes to proceed with this request, it will need to refer this item to the HRC for review.  However, prior to referring this item, it may wish to provide the HRC some general comment about the Commission’s direction on this request.  The HRC was involved in the review of Freenet’s prior proposal mentioned previously.  At that time, HRC had expressed concerns about potential impact on downtown. Although, the equipment proposed is different than the equipment proposed previously.

 

Possible Next Steps:  City staff would suggest that the City Commission could take several possible next steps regarding this request.

 

1)     Refer the item to the HRC for review after providing some general direction to HRC about the item.

and

2)     Direct staff to develop an agreement with Freenet to facilitate their request for the installation downtown. 

 

Staff could proceed with the above noted steps simultaneously, if desired.

 

It would be appropriate for the City Commission to provide direction to City staff about this request at this point.