When Cook County Information System (IS) Director Rena Rogers came before the Cook County Board of Commissioners in January to tell them about a Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) proposal to build two 330-foot Allied Radio Matrix Emergency Response (ARMER) towers on county land in Hovland and Tofte, commissioners asked that MnDOT come explain why the two towers are needed. On Tuesday, February 24, 2015, two MnDOT officials were on hand to talk to the board. They answered questions on the towers on county land but left unanswered questions on towers to be installed on state land.
Citizens opposed to taller towers
One tower will be located on county land approximately 3½ miles southeast of Sawbill Canoe Outfitters and the other on county land will be near Devilfish Lake near the end of the Arrowhead Trail.
The Cook County News-Herald contacted IS Director Rogers after the county board meeting to ask if these are the only towers planned on county land. Rogers said yes, but added that could change, as site locations necessary to “accomplish the redundant microwave path and coverage requirements” had not yet been finalized.
Several citizens spoke during the public comment period, making their case against the 330-foot towers that would not be in compliance with the county’s tower ordinance.
Gunflint Trail resident and owner of Boundary Country Trekking Ted Young reminded the county board that the Cook County economy is dependent on tourism. Young said they come for the natural beauty of the area and the ARMER towers would distract from that.
Gunflint Trail Resident Jim Raml read a written statement, speaking of his time as a member of the group that formulated the current county land use plan. Raml said that group recognized the need for a tower ordinance in response to the proliferation of cell phone towers throughout the state. Raml said after considerable discussion, consensus was reached that construction of tall, artificially lit and guy-wired towers in the county would “present an unacceptable degradation to the scenic qualities we strive to promote as well as threaten sensitive migratory birds in an area internationally known as an important nesting area for new-tropical warblers.”
The county board unanimously approved the current ordinance in 2001.
Raml shared his concern about the effectiveness and cost of the ARMER system, as well as the height of the towers and the need that they be lighted, as well as the number of new towers that MnDOT is proposing to build. Finally, he said, “I respectfully ask that if the county board still feels it must switch to the ARMER system that it be done within the existing framework of the land use plan and tower ordinance and not grant a variance to construct towers taller than 199 feet. To do otherwise would not only disregard the intent of our current land use plan and tower ordinance, but set an irreversible precedent opening the door for even more tall towers filling the countryside and degrading scenic vistas.”
A final comment was made by Paul Danicic of the Friends of the Boundary Waters, who said he represented about 700 members in Cook County. He echoed the comments of Young and Raml.
Users appreciate ARMER radio
Cook County’s 911 Communication Committee had voted unanimously to recommend the 330-foot towers to the county board. This committee is made up of ARMER radio users, including emergency responders and county highway department workers. When County Engineer David Betts and Maintenance Supervisor Russell Klegstad appeared before the board on another matter, County Board Chair Heidi Doo-Kirk asked them to share their experience with the ARMER system.
Klegstad said there is a need for more towers, noting several areas where the highway department has no ability to communicate. “If we’re having this problem, I know they are having problems on the emergency services side,” he said.
Both Betts and Klegstad said the ARMER system is an improvement. “I was not an advocate,” said Klegstad. “I didn’t think it would be as good as they said. But it is substantially better than what we had.”
Betts added that the highway department had spent about $115,000 to equip its fleet.
MnDOT to comply with ordinance on county land
Shane Chatleain, MnDOT’s ARMER Facilities and Contract Manager, shared a map of the county showing the coverage that would be provided by 16 towers in the county— some existing and some new, like the two proposed on county land. Chatleain said MnDOT was open to building either height—330-feet or 180-feet. He said the decision was the county’s, depending on the coverage the county wants.
Commissioner Garry Gamble said since the county’s tower ordinance was formed through citizen participation, the county should not grant a variance to go against that.
Commissioner Frank Moe said he had heard from many of his constituents that are opposed to taller, lighted towers. He also said he didn’t like that MnDOT was “abdicating the responsibility” to the county. If the county authorized construction of a 330-foot tower and a lawsuit was brought similar to the one in Ely in opposition to a cell phone tower, the county would incur those legal fees, said Moe.
Moe made a motion to approve construction of towers up to 200 feet on the county-owned sites. Commissioner Gamble seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
Taller towers on state land?
One question asked by Raml that went unanswered at the county board meeting was what would be the height of other towers, such as two new sites proposed on state land off Lima Mountain Road and the Cascade River?
The MnDOT officials were unavailable for comment, so the News-Herald asked IS Director Rogers for more information. Rogers said MnDOT has an exemption from local ordinances such as the Cook County Tower Ordinance, so it could construct a 330- foot tower on state land at its proposed Cascade River and Lima Mountain sites.
Rogers said, “Representation of the Cascade tower at 330-feet and the Lima Tower at 180-feet on the coverage map supplied at yesterday’s county board meeting was a place holder to provide a complete coverage map anticipated when all towers were built.”
“MnDOT is aware of the county’s Tower Ordinance, and although they have an exemption, will continue to look for ways to both ensure coverage for public safety while trying to find solutions that have a minimum impact on Cook County’s unique wilderness setting,” Rogers added.
Another question raised at the meeting was a tower at the end of the Gunflint Trail, which was a surprise to some who have been following the ARMER tower process.
Rogers told the News-Herald, “These sites are still being finalized. Cook County and MnDOT have been actively looking for ways to improve ARMER coverage at the end of the Gunflint Trail for several years. Several different locations have been discussed and made it to different points in process. The site for the end of the Trail tower that was indicated on the coverage map presented by MnDOT at the commissioners meeting is the latest location to be looked at.
“The environmental review process has not begun nor has the site made it to a point in the engineering process where a height requirement can be known,” said Rogers, noting that the Gunflint sites under consideration are on state land.
In a phone conversation at press time, Commissioner Garry Gamble said he was frustrated that after the county board meeting he was told by MnDOT officials that it was possible that a 330-foot tower would be erected at Cascade River. Gamble said he told the officials that while MnDOT may have the authority to move forward without consulting the county, “it demonstrates a lack of propriety and reinforces the notion of autocratic government.”
Gamble said he would be meeting with IS Director Rogers and Radio Communications Specialist Rowan Watkins to look at the “big picture so we as a community are not surprised by where this all ends up.”
Current ARMER sites in Cook County
1. Maple Hill
2. Lutsen Ski Hill
3. Honeymoon
4. Bogus Lake
5. Mid-Trail
6. Gunflint
7. Hovland
8. Mt. Maud
9. Grand Portage
Information Center
10. Cook County Law
Enforcement Center –
pending
Leave a Reply