Finance Committee - 7/19/2017 Page 4
Attorney Bolton
The situation was approved by this Board and the Planning Board before | occupied this position. | have been
working for the last year and four months to accomplish what was intended, but they don’t want to sign a new
agreement. | can’t force them. We've brought some pressure to bear on AT&T to get this far, but why the
situation was allowed to develop so that we would have two towers in very close proximity and have this long
process of moving carriers from one tower to the other, | don’t have enough information to be able to answer
that question.
Alderman Cookson
Who is the final carrier?
Attorney Bolton
It's a small one. The name escapes me at the moment.
Alderman Cookson
But you can provide that to us?
Attorney Bolton
| can, yes.
Alderman Cookson
Thank you. Even though we have approved it and we’ve built two towers within feet of one another ...
Attorney Bolton
We haven't. Two towers exist within close proximity.
Alderman Cookson
Two towers have been built within feet of one another. How does our law apply to that situation which says we
will not have another cell tower built within one mile of an existing.
Attorney Bolton
The city has managed to violate its own ordinance.
Alderman Cookson
What is the consequence of violating its own ordinance?
Attorney Bolton
We're not going to take ourselves to court over it.
Alderman Cookson
So there is no violation.
