[Excerpts re: Sprint Cellular Tower on JEA Site]

    Fields:         Thank you, Mr. President, our first speaker is Nancy Smith, to be
    followed by Jim Carr, to be followed by Jeff Smith.

    Davis:          Now we have a card with your address on it, so all you have to do
    is give us your name for the microphone.

    N. Smith:       Members of the Council, my name is Nancy Smith.  I am here
    tonight to urge every member of the City Council to stand firmly by its
    zoning ordinance passed about two years ago to protect residential property
    from the intrusion of communication towers.  There's nothing fuzzy or
    confusing about this ordinance.  Nothing requires a complicated
    interpretation by a team of lawyers.  This ordinance is a good one, and its
    intent is clear - protection of residential areas.  Our home is in
    Mandarin, and on June 5th Sprint began construction of a tower that is less
    than 30 feet from our fence.  It's on a JEA right-of-way.  It is outrageous
    to have such a monster staring at us from our backyard.  We moved back to
    Jacksonville last year.  We've been in our home one year, and we now have a
    structure that's inexplicable in our backyard, and we should have been
    protected by our ordinances.  This offends my American sensibilities.
    There is no loophole in this ordinance.  To permit this violation is just a
    twisting of some particular wording that the City or the JEA lawyers have
    decided to gain financially as a lease - a landlord for the Sprint PCS
    tower.  Please honor your commitment on this ordinance.  Please don't let
    us sit there in Mandarin as sitting ducks and let us be an example for a
    reason why this ordinance didn't work when it's a perfectly good ordinance
    and should have protected us.  Instead, Sprint and JEA have sort of snuck
    in overnight and put this thing in our backyard.  And, I believe it reduces
    our property value.  Friends who have come to visit are just in awe - I
    mean, they just can't believe that we have to sit and look at this thing in
    our backyard.  It is 30 feet from our front fence.  We have no idea what
    the health implications are in the long run.  Sprint indicates that there
    aren't any, of course.  There wasn't any with asbestos either, but we have
    to wait 25 years to find that out.  And I don't think that's fair, and I
    really hope the City Council will stand by their ordinance and not let this
    happen to our home and our neighborhood in Mandarin.  Thank.

    Davis:          Thank you for being here.

    Fields:         Our next speaker is Jim Carr, to be followed by Jeff Smith.

    J. Carr:        Thank you.  My name is Jim Carr.  I have a hand-out – I'm not sure
    of the protocol – I would like each member of the Council to have this.
    The hand-out is a copy of a web-site, a site on the World Wide Web, that is
    dedicated to the cellular tower that exists that Mrs. Smith just referred
    to.  I, too, moved back to Jacksonville last year after being away in
    Kentucky for three years.  I'm an active-duty Navy commander, I'm a veteran
    of Desert Storm.  I resided in Jacksonville from 1989 to 1994.  My wife
    owns a small business here, and we intend to make Jacksonville our
    permanent home.  I moved into Alden Glen last June, and as Mrs. Smith
    indicated, on the weekend of 5 and 6 June, subcontractors for Sprint
    Personal Communication Systems installed this 100-foot tower, which is well
    within 250 feet of my lot line.  They worked Friday evening, they worked
    Saturday, they worked Sunday.  At 01:30 in the morning on the 19th of June,
    we were awakened by activity in the JEA right-of-way as crews worked
    through the night to install JEA electrical lines onto the lower part of
    the monopole.  City Ordinance 96-305-296 specifically prohibits
    construction of a cellular tower where within 250 feet of an RLD lot line.
    It also refers to destruction of view in the subdivision, residential area.
     It is my belief that the presence of the cellular telephone tower devalues
    my property as well as the adjoining property in that subdivision.  I would
    like to state that – and this is not a negative for Councilman Kravitz – he
    and his staff have been very responsive in the inquiries we have made since
    5 June.  Unfortunately, we have not received the same responsiveness from
    the JEA.  It has been reported in the media; WJXT, that the City Council is
    considering amending the present ordinance or writing a new law.  Folks, we
    don't need a new law, we need the present law enforced.  Thank you very much.

    Davis:          Thank you, Mr. Carr.  I appreciate you being with us tonight.

    Fields:         Our next speaker is Jeff Smith, to be followed by Lynda Stockerson
    [sic], to be followed by Suzanne Jenkins.

    J. Smith:       I'm Jeff Smith.  This is my homework.  I never liked homework
    when I was in school, and I don't really like it at this stage in my life.
    I would like to pass this out.  I have an envelope here containing the site
    amendment to a JEA-Sprint lease –

    Davis:          We'll get our two aides here to –

    J. Smith:       – and I also have the master lease for the JEA-Sprint lease that
    they've entered into with regard to these communication towers.  I'm here
    tonight to basically urge you to recognize that this ordinance as presently
    written does not contain a loophole that allows these folks to put this
    tower up.  They are attempting to assert that they are doing nothing more
    than adding to an existing structure, while the existing structure was an
    80-foot innocuous electric pole that you see along any street in
    Jacksonville.  It runs down the middle of the JEA right-of-way.  They've
    come out, they've constructed a 100-foot monopole which is much larger and
    much taller, and they've put a communication antenna on top of it.  It's 35
    feet from my lot.  It devalues my property, and it's something that we in
    this city should not have to tolerate.  We've got an ordinance that
    prohibits these things, and we're concerned that the Council is considering
    the notion that there is some kind of a loophole in the law.  It's my
    position and my considered opinion that it's not – that there is no
    loophole.  I am an attorney by training.  I can read a statute, and I know
    what it says.  I've talked with other lawyers who concur with me on that.
    The City attorneys don't seem to agree with that position, but it seems to
    me that somebody in the Planning and Zoning Department, the Building
    Department, has simply made a mistake in connection with this building
    permit application.  I think those folks need to be big enough to recognize
    that they have made a mistake, and they need to be big enough to correct
    that mistake.  This is the kind of thing that should not be allowed to
    happen in this town.  I've lived here for 30 years, went to high school
    here, I've raised my family here, I live in a very nice neighborhood, and
    we don't need to have this kind of intrusion and we've got laws that
    prohibit this kind of thing.  I appreciate your time, and thanks for the
    opportunity to speak with you.

    Davis:          Thank you, Mr. Smith.  Are you the last – is he the last speaker on
    this particular subject?  On the tower?

    J. Smith:       No, I don't think so.

    Fields:         No, there are two other people.

    Davis:          After we've had the last speaker, I want to make one comment, then
    I want to ask Mr. Kravitz to give you a brief response.  Yes, ma'am, please
    come forward.

    Fields:         Lynda Storkerson who will be followed by Suzanne Jenkins who is
    the last speaker.

    Davis:          All right.  Thank you.

    L.Storkerson:   Yes sir.  Lynda Storkerson, President of JaxPride, 505
    Wharfside Way in Jacksonville.

                    JaxPride is here to support the variance and exception procedures for all
    cell towers placed in close proximity to neighbors and residential
    property.  Again, I can reiterate, there is no loophole in the current law.
     JaxPride worked very closely with the Council when this law was initially
    enacted, and it is a good ordinance.  It is a good ordinance.

                    We do believe that there has been a "communication problem," if I can --
    if you'll pardon the pun, somewhere in the permitting process.  It is our
    understanding that Sprint's new, spiral concrete, hollow-cored 54,000-pound
    communication tower is taller, deeper, and wider than the pre-existing JEA
    steel pole that was located ten feet to the north of this site.  There was
    no problem with the old 80-foot transmission pole which JEA had utilized
    for many years to hold its transmission lines.

                    The new tower was designed for Sprint.  The new tower was manufactured
    for Sprint.  The new tower was paid for by Sprint.  The new tower was
    erected by a contractor hired by Sprint.  The only reason that this new
    tower has been erected is to accommodate the build-out of Sprint's PCS
    system here in Jacksonville.  The new tower is not an existing structure.
    The fact that holes had been drilled in its side to attach transmission
    lines does not change the principal purpose of this new communication tower.

                    I hope that the City Council can request that the General Counsel's
    Office take a new look at this matter.  Sprint should follow the variance
    and exception process when its new tower is only 30 feet away from a
    residential property.  Again, there is no loophole.  I am deeply confused
    as to how this issue has been allowed to develop when the Council has been
    so cautious and so supportive of neighborhoods when establishing cell tower
    zoning ordinances in the past.  Thank you Mr. Chairman.

    Davis:          Thank you, Miss Storkerson, for being with us tonight.

    Fields:         Suzanne Jenkins, it's our last speaker.

    Davis:          All right.

    S. Jenkins:     Suzanne Jenkins, 4765 Silver Ridge Court.  I come before you
    tonight like I did a few years ago and ask for your help about the cell
    tower in Mandarin.  No, it doesn't affect my community, but it could in the
    future with the way this is being interpreted.  My concern is that if we
    want to be a first-tier city, we want to have good quality of life, and if
    we can't protect our neighborhoods in the ordinance that y'all crafted
    about three years ago, then how are we going to give that quality of life
    to our residents.  When I sat through many meetings over the cell phone
    tower that Powertel had put over in the Firemen's Pension Fund – the Police
    and Firemen's Pension Fund Building, which turned out to be a public
    building and could be put there, we looked at then at how we could keep
    that from ever happening again.  We spent many hours.  I sat in the
    audience as y'all discussed and debated ways to make this not happen again
    to protect neighborhoods.  I think that if you look at the permitting
    process on this particular one, you may find that while they applied for a
    permit to put it on top of an existing pole, what they actually did was
    take the existing pole out and put something in that would fit their
    footprint and hold their communications on the top.  That was not existing.
     My concern is that I have those same type of power poles running through
    an easement through our old neighborhood and the same thing could happen to
    the people.  And some of it could be in their backyards.  And some of it
    could be in their front yards.  And we could have a new pole that is bigger
    and taller and have a communication tower – because we're really near 95
    and Emerson and the Hart Expressway, so it would make a convenient place.
    I urge y'all to look at this and really see how it happened, because when I
    sat out here and listened to the debate and was part of the debate, I know
    y'all's intention was to protect communities and there had to be at least
    250 feet from a property of a resident.  I hope you really will take time
    to look into this and show the leadership you've shown in the past when a
    community was impacted by this.  Thank you.

    Davis:          Thank you, Ms. Jenkins.  Are there any other speakers on this
    subject?  If not, then I am going to ask the Council member involved here
    to make a comment.  But before I do that I would like to say that almost
    all of the Council members you see before you tonight worked very hard on
    our ordinance that we have that controlled the construction of antennas and
    towers, and so forth, and I must tell that when I first learned of this I
    was very surprised to learn that this tower was being erected there, and
    looking at Ms. Jenkins, I know that she remembers very vividly that a tower
    went up right in the middle of her neighborhood right off of Emerson Street
    in close proximity to some homes as well, and a lot of us got involved in
    that, and that tower was eventually taken down.  It wasn't totally
    completed at the time, but it was more than halfway at that time, and the
    company finally agreed that we were doing the right thing by asking them
    not to put it there.  And they did take it down, and I hope that there is
    something we can do about this tower.  It doesn't seem to comply with the
    ordinance, and I don't know where this rumor got started that we are
    considering some kind of a amendment to the ordinance.  I haven't heard
    anything about it, and I don't know that there would be much favor for an
    amendment to that ordinance that would allow a tower to built like the one
    out in Mandarin right now.  But at this point, I'd like to ask Mr. Kravitz
    if he would like to give a brief response.  This is not the time for debate
    and response, but I think that it's important enough that I would like the
    District Councilman to respond.

    Kravitz:        Thank you, Mr. Davis.  This is not – I just want to clarify some
    issues.  First of all, one of the speakers said ‘I hope we can do something
    about it and how did the Council allow it' – we didn't allow this to
    happen.  And we have to get to the people who did allow it to happen, and I
    agree wholeheartedly with everyone who spoke in the audience, and they know
    that.  This is an interpretation that still baffles me.  I don't agree with
    it.  I've met with Mr. Smith.  I've met with our legal staff.  I've met
    with Building and Zoning.  And I honestly believe that our people made a
    mistake.  That's my opinion, that's the neighbors' opinion.  We crafted
    that bill very carefully to protect residential, very carefully.  And I
    just don't agree with the interpretation that our administration has made,
    and I am going to ask our Council President Davis to go to our General
    Counsel, Mr. Mullaney, and talk with him about this.  But while we're doing
    that, I don't want other people's neighborhoods to suffer because if it was
    allowed once by Building and Zoning, it could be allowed again and that's
    why I put in a bill – 98-57- – let's see if I can find it here – 98-583,
    that is going to require these minimum distances be met regardless of any,
    regardless of existing, replacement, anything.  And I feel that I need to
    do that because this could take awhile.  I hope it doesn't.  So that will
    protect other people.  That doesn't help you folks in the audience.  But
    this will prevent anyone from coming within 250 feet, or if they do, they
    will need a variance, and they will have to have public hearing, and
    they'll have to prove that it's hardship.  That they created – that they
    didn't create the hardship.  But, Mr. President, to make this brief, we
    need your help to go back, because if you read that bill, there is no way
    that a person, a lay person, a person who has to live in a neighborhood and
    has to deal with these issues, could ever look at that bill and say ‘this
    applies.'  It doesn't apply.  There is no way that that should have been –
    this is a new tower.  There is no way that this should have ever happened.
    Now I will also say that the JEA has been extremely cooperative with us,
    extremely cooperative.  So it's not a problem with the JEA.  This is an
    insignificant amount of revenue in the whole picture that they see to get
    by this.  Our problem is internal to this city and to this administration,
    and if we really feel that we're working for neighborhoods, then this
    administration needs to go back and get that tower removed for these people
    and not let it happen again.  Thank you.

    Davis:          Thank you.

    [applause]

    Davis:          Well, let me also remind the audience that our Council Rules do not
    allow for demonstration, no matter how passionately you might feel about
    it.  You can give Mr. Kravitz a call in the morning and tell him how much
    you appreciate it.  We don't allow for demonstrations in the bosom of the
    Council, thank you.  But I will also tell you that I will get together with
    Mr. Mullaney before noon and bring him the file on this and ask him to
    investigate it for us and see what he's got to say.  All right, who's our
    next speaker.

    Fields:         That's it, Mr. President.

    Davis:          Okay.  Anyone else in the public wish to address the Council at
    this time, if not, that closes the comments from the public section of our
    meeting and we are now into –

    Tullis:         Mr. President, if I might –

    Davis:          Yes Mr. Tullis.

    Tullis:         I know that you don't want to take time, but I'm getting an awful
    lot of phone calls on this item.  I had no idea what in the world the
    people were talking about coming up here, and I would like a brief
    explanation from our attorneys of why our law, which was very plain, has
    been thrown out.  It doesn't matter that it was a replacement pole.  It was
    very clear and done, and I think we're owed an explanation, and I would
    like it tonight of why they feel –

    Davis:          Well, I don't know if our attorneys can do that.  But before I do
    that, Mr. Tullis, I had recognized – I will ask them to do that for you,
    but before I –

    Tullis:         I can't imagine them not being ready tonight with as much comment
    as this has been.  We've got three attorneys – four attorneys sitting over
    there.  And I think that this is something that, maybe we'll give them 15
    minutes and let them get up on it.

    Davis:          Well, I'm going to have to be thinking about that right now, but I
    had already recognized Hipps and I neglected to recognize here before I
    recognized you, so I'd like to call Mrs. Hipps.  And the attorneys can be
    thinking about Mr. Tullis's request.  Ms. Hipps.

    Hipps:          That's all right, Mr. President.  Really, Mr. Tullis mentioned
    those questions, and I'll be very brief.  I know that Councilman Kravitz
    has done a good job to look at this, this whole issue, and we'll look
    forward to making sure that whatever support that you have – because as we
    go forward, I appreciate the comments that you made about all the work that
    was done to make sure that something like didn't happen.  Thank you.

    Davis:          Thank you, Mrs. Hipps. How about the General Counsel's Office?
    Okay, Stephen.

    Rohan:  Are we on?

    Davis:          Yes you are.

    Rohan:  Thank you Mr. Council President, Council Member Tullis.  We'd dare
    not get into a contest with Council Member Kravitz on this, however,
    Building and Zoning has opined that the cell tower and what they had put up
    is not in violation of the Ordinance Code, and I can give you the basis of
    that, and Legal has supported that.  So let me explain what the basis is.
    In Section 656.1503, Use of Existing Structures, this is a separate section
    of this communications towers ordinance, and what it effectively says in
    Section (d) is that the distance requirements do not apply if you locate a
    communication antenna on an existing structure.  And it defines the
    existing structure as public utility structures.  So given that, Building
    and Zoning has opined that putting a communications antenna on top of a JEA
    pole is legal.  It's an existing structure, and it does not require the
    250-foot limitations otherwise provided in the Ordinance Code.

    Davis:          Mr. Rohan, we're not going to get involved in a big debate on this
    issue right here tonight, but let me say this.  That tower that we have
    been shown a picture of here tonight is not the existing JEA structure that
    existed there.  They took that particular pole down and built a
    communication tower in the same location with this huge communication base,
    made the pole wider, made it taller, made it out of different materials,
    and constructed a new tower in the location where a JEA structure might
    have been.  But that's not putting a communication device on an existing
    tower.

    Rohan:  But if it pleases, Mr. President.  That – the existing tower which
    carried the JEA power lines continues to carry the JEA power lines although
    they have indeed replaced that power line holder with a new power line
    holder that's a little bit bigger and a little bit taller, it still
    continues to carry the electricity.  We're not talking about a brand new
    pole elsewhere.

    Davis:          All right.  I think everybody understands where we are.  I think we
    need to see if we can't find another place for Sprint to put that on
    another JEA tower some place that's at least 5- or 600 feet - yeah, maybe
    in - no, we don't want to say in South Georgia because we've got a lot of
    friends in South Georgia.  But we're going to see if we can't find another
    place for it, and we'll do whatever we can to help you.  That's all I can
    tell you right now.  All right.  Mr. Floor Leader, we're now on actions and
    resolutions referred for third reading.

            ----

    Davis:          Now, Mr. Tullis.

    Tullis:         Mr. President, I think we have one of the finest legal staffs
    around today.  I've been on this Council 14 years, and I have a lot of
    respect for them.  But once in 14 years I disagreed with one their
    opinions, and I came to this Council late Monday, on a late Tuesday night,
    3:15 in the morning, and you gave me the money to hire outside staff to
    handle a case with the City of Jacksonville, against the City of
    Jacksonville.  And I'm going to move that amendment tonight.  I feel that
    we should take $50,000 from our Council reserve which we have money in it,
    and hire an outside attorney to help us with this tower.  I think it's
    extremely serious.  I don't think there's any doubt in anybody's mind of
    what we said and how we said it.  I understand our attorneys.  I'm not an
    attorney.  God, I wish I had been, but I think that if you had four
    different attorneys you'd have five difference opinions.  No disrespect to
    the attorneys' firm.  But I would feel better in this case, after hearing
    what I've heard tonight from our legal staff, and I do understand Mr.
    Rohan, I think is the JEA's legal staff.  But to show that we're not going
    to have any problem or any bias, I would like to have this Council to put
    $50,000.  I have quickly talked to an attorney in the back of the room.
    They think it is a very defendable case, and one that can be won.  I think
    it is just that very important for this community.  We are very, Mr.
    Kravitz stopped all building of towers in this city when he was President
    to make sure that we took our proper steps, and we went through everything.
     And it's just a bunch of baloney, folks.  That is not a replacement pole.
    That is an interpretation to get around, and I was handed a list the first
    time it went through, it was denied, the application was denied.  So it was
    looked at to see a way to put it through undoubtedly.  And I just don't
    think, it's just not, I'd rather go to court on it.  I would rather go
    right to the courtroom and have the courts tell us, because folks we don't
    know how to draw law up here.  We do not have the legal staff to help us
    draw a law if this tower is allowed to stand.  Now we count on our legal
    staff to sit up here and listen to this community, and those of us who
    aren't attorneys, but those of you who are attorneys on this Council looked
    at this, and we thought we had the law to stop this shenanigans.  So I'm
    going to ask you.  I'd just like to have that drawn up tonight.

    Davis:          Well, let me inquire of legal.  What Mr. Tullis is talking about, I
    assume that requires some kind of a written ordinance and to be presented
    here tonight, a brand new ordinance to be voted on as an emergency
    requires, what – two-thirds of the members present to support it? to vote
    for it?

    Rohan:  Well, Mr. President, we would certainly look into this at greater
    length.  However, I believe that what you would want to do is a resolution
    requesting the General Counsel to authorize it.  I think it is beyond the
    Charter authority.  The General Counsel makes binding legal opinions I
    think first, and administratively, a request should be made to the General
    Counsel to issue a binding legal opinion.  The opinions of the Assistant
    Counsels and the Deputy Counsels do not stand as binding legal opinions for
    the office of the General Counsel.  The Charter vests final legal authority
    in the Office of General Counsel in the General Counsel, him or herself,
    depending on who it is, and therefore I think you can have a resolution
    requesting possibly outside counsel.  I don't think the Council has
    jurisdiction at this point to hire outside counsel for this issue.

    Davis:          Okay, Mr. Tullis, would you like to submit a resolution then
    requesting General Counsel –

    Tullis:         Mr. President, since I did the last one in 19– , what was the
    night we went all night until seven into the morning?  We did an ordinance
    that night request, we took out I think it was $35,000 was what we
    appropriated from our funds to seek legal advice outside.  I'm just saying
    I'd like to have an ordinance tonight that we take $50,000, up to $50,000
    from our Council reserve to get the proper outside legal help to make sure
    that this is, that what we're doing is proper.

    Davis:          Okay, discussion on that.  Mr. Wood.

    Wood:           The last time we got into one of these situations, the Council ended
    up at one time, Mr. Smith, Mr. Jones amongst us at the time, we ended up
    hiring our own counsel because of a similar disagreement with the General
    Counsel's Office and we set-up two people, actually Mr. Cope was one of
    them, that came and represented the Council because the Council felt at one
    time that its interest and perhaps the administration's interest lay in
    different areas, and we were putting the General Counsel in a severe bind
    by trying to represent both of us, and I think we may be coming on one of
    those issues again, and I think it may be time to do it.  I don't, the
    proper procedure is probably to set the money aside and then allow you to
    talk with Mr. Mullaney and let him know that Council's thoroughly prepared
    to move ahead with this issue if they don't, if they don't feel that the
    interests of the Council and the community are being represented properly.
    And there are times when the General Counsel is put in that type of a bind,
    but I think that we ought to empower you, and if setting that money aside,
    that Mr. Tullis is suggesting, then I think we empower you to go sit down
    with the General Counsel and let him know that this body is very serious,
    that this is a very strong issue with us.  That we've worked on it for
    several years, and that we feel that the ordinance speaks for itself, and
    that we're fully behind going to the extent of going outside for our own
    counsel opinion, and sort of ordering him to request that if that's what
    the Charter requires.  Otherwise, we'll come back and review the Charter
    and see what we need to do to be on equal standing on legal advice.

    Davis:          All right.  Thank you.  Any other comments on this line?  Mr. Dale
    and then Mr. Kravitz, Chandler-Thompson, and then Brown.

    Dale:           Thank you, Mr. President.  When Councilman Smith appointed me
    Chairman of the Select Committee on Legal Affairs, this was one of the
    issues we looked at, what was the authority of the City Council to go
    outside for legal counsel.  And I think we found what Mr. Rohan said, that
    the Charter leaves that decision to the General Counsel, the General
    Counsel himself, that person.  I feel like, like our instincts are all
    right, because I agree with the consensus I hear around here that an
    existing structure means an existing structure, not a new tower that's been
    built.  However, as you all know, many times things are not as simple as
    they appear on the surface.  I think we need to take a little time, and I
    like the path that you and Councilman Tullis were leading us earlier, that
    you were going to meet with the General Counsel, Mr. Mullaney, and see what
    could be worked out, and if it can't be worked out, I could certainly
    support Mr. Tullis's position when you come back and report to the Council
    at the next meeting.  I would like to ask a question through the Chair to
    Mr. Rohan.

    Davis:          What is it?

    Dale:           Mr. Rohan, if I understand you correctly from your earlier comments,
    that the General Counsel has not taken a position on this particular legal
    issue, whether this is in accordance with our cell tower ordinance or not?

    Rohan:  That is correct.

    Dale:           Okay.  I think it is premature until the General Counsel rules, and
    our Council President has had a chance to confer with him whether we take
    that next step.  Thank you.

    Rohan:  And, Mr. President?

    Davis:          Yes, Mr. Rohan, go ahead.

    Rohan:  May I finish?  It's quite likely there's been a threat of a lawsuit,
    and we respect that, and we understand that.  It's quite likely that given
    the position at least of the Assistant General Counsels in the office that
    if there was a lawsuit, we might, the General Counsel might authorize the
    use of outside legal counsel since we've given one opinion it would be
    unfair to you to be represented by us, given our opinion.  So, very likely,
    in the event of a lawsuit, there would be another attorney brought in.

    Davis:          Uh-huh.  Well.  Before we get into any further discussion, what I
    really would like is to have the opportunity to sit down with the General
    Counsel, Mr. Mullaney, and explain our dilemma to him.  I can pretty well
    sense that we have unanimous feelings here that we need to see what we can
    do about getting this tower taken down.  Isn't that basically where we are?
     And if he tells us, ‘well, I agree with the opinion Mr. Rohan gave us,'
    then my commitment to you would be then we might even call a special City
    Council meeting at which time, prior to that meeting, we could have
    prepared a proper ordinance allocating money and checking out the legality
    of the City Council going and hiring outside counsel.  Give us a few days
    to work that out.  That's the way I would like to handle it.  But if
    two-thirds of you want to do something other than that tonight, and we have
    a legitimate motion on the floor, then I certainly am not inclined to deny
    that.  So, we can proceed along those lines.  Mr. Kravitz was next.

    Kravitz:        Through the Chair I would like to ask Mr. Rohan a question, and
    let me say this.  There is always more than one opinion.  And Steve has
    really worked, he just shares a different opinion.  We're very far apart on
    our opinions.  But just let me ask, Steve, did the Building and Zoning
    Department ask for your advice before that granted the permit, or was that
    just when I had the meeting?  They did that on their own.

    Rohan:  I can't answer that question.  I don't know the answer.  I was
    brought into it –

    Kravitz:        When I called you?

    Rohan:  – when you called.

    Kravitz:        So they didn't ask for your advice before.

    Rohan:  My opinion was independent and was based upon the reading of the
    ordinance.

    Kravitz:        But that was after they gave the permit that you were brought in?

    Rohan:  Yes.

    Kravitz:        You see, that's part of the problem.  You know, it doesn't take a
    genius to know that we worked real hard on this bill.  This was a hotly
    debated bill for six months.  And we crafted these amendments specifically
    to protect neighborhoods from the negative intrusions of towers.  Anybody
    that was in city government, whether you worked in Building and Zoning or
    the Land Use Department would know that.  That should have been a red light
    before that Building and Zoning Department issued that permit.  So at least
    go to the General Counsel and seek counsel on whether they were doing the
    right thing.  Because I got to tell you folks . . . The existing tower . .
    . we wanted to promote using these antennas as utiity towers, in parks, on
    lights in ballparks because we were told, well, because we were told . . .
    it's in the law that you could only go 20 feet, 20 feet on an existing
    pole.  That's what the law says.  And that wasn't much of an impact.
    You're already putting the towers where there are power lines or existing
    floodlights for a ballfield.  But to come in and to build another pole in
    that transmission line that's wider and bigger, that's not right.
    Something is wrong.  And the people are suffering, which violates the
    intent of the bill, and I think it violates the law as well, but that's my
    opinion.  I would support Mr. Tullis's resolution down the line, but I
    think that you, as the President, ought to go, and I asked Mr. Mullaney but
    he was out of town last week, but I think it would do us well for you to
    inquire, another day or two isn't going to make a difference, and let him
    really look at that law.  I can't imagine, really, and believe me, maybe I
    need to check in, if Mr. Smith will get me a course over at his law school
    where he teaches, but I can't imagine how something that says "existing" –
    when did that – that transmission line has been existing for years.  And
    here's a pole that's existing after those towers were built years ago.  Now
    how can that be an existing pole.  You figure that out.

    Davis:          That's a very good question.  But I imagine Mr. Fussell is
    somewhere watching this meeting.  I think he probably watches it from his
    office on the fourth floor, so I hope he is, and I want Mr. Fussell to help
    me with this because I would like for him to contact Mr. Mullaney and tell
    him I would like to see him as early as possible tomorrow morning.  And I
    commit to you that I will have that meeting tomorrow morning.  Mr. Mullaney
    was out of town all last week.  I know he was on vacation, but he is back,
    and I will meet with him first thing in the morning.  And depending on the
    results of that conversation, I will get information back to all of you,
    and believe me, we won't let this matter linger, and we won't let it die,
    and if necessary, we'll get us back together in a special session, sometime
    soon.  Would that be okay with everybody?  Mr. Smith?

    Smith:          Mr. President, that's okay with me.  I just wanted to make this
    brief observation.  Like the rest of you and the neighbors, I'm kind of mad
    as hell about it.  I don't think anybody's in doubt as to what our intent
    was, but frequently if we sit and talk with our General Counsel, as we have
    in the past, things work out.  We had this situation when, last year, about
    a year-and-a-half ago, Mr. Tullis and I sat in a judge's chambers, and
    since there was a conflict with the General Counsel's Office, we – one
    lawyer, one non-lawyer – represented the Council.  I think that issue was
    called "Mom's Kitchen" and since has been memorialized in song, but that's
    another story.  What ultimately happened was that the General Counsel later
    issued one of those binding opinions that took the Mayor out of that loop.
    So when we let it run its course, it did work out.  So, Mr. President, your
    idea, I think, is a good one, and your commitment holds a lot of water with
    me.

    Davis:          Thank you, Mr. Smith.  I do have Dr. Thompson, do you – oh, there's
    Mr. Fussell.  I assume you heard my comments, Ronnie.  You know where we
    are.  I need to meet with Rick Mullaney as early as possible tomorrow morning.

    Fussell:        Yes sir.

    Davis:          Now will you talk with him and give me a call tomorrow morning at
    Gate and let me know when –

    Fussell:        Yes sir, more be than happy to.

    Davis:          Appreciate your help.

    Fussell:        I know you just wanted to wear me out before tomorrow night, so I
    was running.

    Davis:          Well, we won't talk about that.

    Fussell:        Yes sir, I heard every word of it.

    Davis:          Now, I have other members – Dr. Thompson, Mr. Brown, Mr.
    Crescimbeni, unless you want to continue to discuss this matter, because I
    think that's what we're going to do now.  Dr. Thompson?  I didn't think it
    was.  Mr. Brown?  Yours is.  Go ahead.

    Brown:  Just briefly, Mr. President.  Thank you.  I did want to, when I
    asked to speak, it was to support your plan to discuss this issue before we
    take any action.  But when we do, if you ride around town, there appears to
    be a lot of abuse of what Mr. Kravitz referred to when they worked hard on
    building an ordinance on this.  There seems to be a lot of abuse of what we
    encouraged or put in the ordinance to encourage joint use of these towers.
    And now if you ride, I noticed on Beach Boulevard, Phillips Highway, a
    number of areas, you see towers a hundred feet apart, and that tells me
    that the cellular companies are not following the spirit of this.  And
    right away you could eliminate a community problem if you did use the joint
    use pole concept, and it would seem that this, now that this issue has
    popped up, that now might be a good time to review that and ask the code
    enforcement to take a look at that when they start getting complaints and
    when permits are being issued to see if the spirit of that is being
    followed.  Because that just creates more problems for communities and, of
    course, in turn, the City Council.  Thank you.

    Davis:          I remember when we were discussing this ordinance, all of the
    communications companies were touting the fact that they were going to have
    common use.  "Co-location" was the phrase, and they all used it quite a bit.

    [End of comments concerning cell tower issue]