by April Scheinoha
Editor

In a split vote at its meeting Tuesday, April 1, the Thief River Falls City Council postponed consideration of a conditional use permit for a tower north of Arctic Cat. The council voted 5 to 3 to postpone consideration of the matter until the next council meeting Tuesday, April 15.

Wikstrom Telephone Company has sought the conditional use permit to replace its current 200-foot tower. It would like to construct a 200-foot free-standing lattice tower. However, questions remain since the company had previously requested permission to construct a self-supporting 350-foot tower. It had made that request since Minnkota Power also wanted to use the tower. The additional height would have enabled Minnkota Power to add microwave to their power plants in northwest Minnesota from Crookston. An additional 15 feet was also considered since an antenna would need to be installed on top of the tower.

Over the course of the past three months, the company’s tower has been on the council agenda four of the past seven council meetings. On Feb. 18, the council took no action on a request to amend the city ordinance pertaining to tower height. The proposed ordinance change was sought because Wikstrom Telephone Company’s request didn’t fit the criteria for a variance and its issue was self-inflicted. On March 18, the council considered a conditional use permit for a 200-foot free-standing lattice tower. At that time, the council tabled the matter to complete additional research. Brian Wikstrom had also called Mayor Mike Lorenson, saying he was still interested in erecting a taller tower. However, at that time, Lorenson noted an agreement between Minnkota Power and Sjoberg’s Cable may put a monkey wrench in Wikstrom’s plans. It is unclear whether the latter two entities have signed an agreement.

A lengthy discussion ensued and eventually resulted in the postponement. Voting in favor of the postponement were Lorenson, and council members Jason Aarestad, Megan Arlt, Julie Bolduc and Kelly Langness. Voting in opposition were council members Michele McCraw, Steve Narverud and J. Scott Pream.

On Tuesday, April 15, it is expected that the council will consider both requests – a conditional use permit and the originally proposed ordinance amendment.

Tuesday’s meeting
Since March 18, city leaders have done some additional research and analyzed past weather data and the risk for ice storms, according to Lorenson. He added that an individual working in tower sales independently from Wikstrom Telephone Company was interested in utilizing the tower for SKYWARN weather activities. Lorenson said SKYWARN would like a higher tower in order to cover an additional 10-mile radius, which would provide additional safety benefits.

Narverud, who represents the council on the Planning Commission, said there had been a lot of discussion during Planning Commission meetings about the request and that group had sent the matter to the council for discussion.

Narverud said his biggest issue involved the residential areas east and north of the tower. He indicated city ordinance currently stipulates that towers are to be set back from the property lines a minimum distance equal to the tower height plus 10 feet. There would be no room remaining with a 365-foot tower, he said.

If a 200-foot tower didn’t fall onto itself as designed, Narverud noted the tower would land in the middle of the street. On the other hand, according to Narverud, a 365-foot tower would land on mobile homes. He said that possibility greatly bothered him and he would be upset if he lived there.

Narverud believed that Brian Wikstrom was ready to move forward on the tower. He noted there are other, higher towers nearby. One is owned by the State of Minnesota, and Narverud indicated that the city had no say with regard to that tower since it was built on state property.

Narverud also voiced his opinion that a 365-foot tower doesn’t belong in the city limits. He said he would much rather have such a tower outside of the city limits and as far away as possible from the Thief River Falls Regional Airport.

Aarestad replied that he had talked to both Brian and Corey Wikstrom. He said he had been told the tower won’t be constructed until next year, so a postponement to April 15 wouldn’t be an issue.

Lorenson, who serves on the Thief River Falls Regional Airport Authority, said the tower would be well within guidelines form the Federal Aviation Administration. A postponement, according to Lorenson, would provide city leaders an opportunity for more conversations with the Airport Authority. He then noted this discussion pertained to the postponement, not a consideration of the request.

Narverud then asked, “What’s the advantage to having that tower in town?” He indicated he was asking for the city, not for anyone else.

Lorenson replied it may provide additional cellular services in the city. He said the city is struggling for cellular service. Lorenson referred to an issue with a tower at the grain elevator, crippling a cellular company’s customers in the city since that provider was then relying on one tower.

Narverud countered that a cellular service provider could build a tower somewhere else if the council said no to a 365-foot tower.

Lorenson replied that there are three towers serving cellular service providers – one at the grain elevator, one at the ambulance garage and a third near Les’s Sanitation. He noted different cellular service providers utilize the towers. If a tower went down, Lorenson said the city would lose that bench strength, so adding one more would be great. However, he noted that, using Narverud’s scenario, the city would be dependent on a cellular service provider building a tower or working with a partner on accessing a tower.

Narverud responded that the cellular service providers could build towers themselves and the city could reap the property taxes.

Lorenson, who has worked in IT for 25+ years, said it would be an extremely drawn-out process and it wasn’t something for which he wanted to wait.

While Narverud was a vocal critic of the postponement, neither McCraw nor Pream voiced their reasons during the meeting for voting in opposition to the postponement. After the meeting, McCraw told the Northern Watch that she was opposed to erecting a 365-foot tower in a residential area.

Pream told the Northern Watch that he was concerned about how close the tower was to mobile homes and the possibility of ice becoming a projectile after falling off of the tower.