Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Communications Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County reviews plans for new 75‑foot communications tower; vendor cites FAA timeline and foundation needs
Summary
A contractor and vendor described plans for a new communications tower at the county facility, the board discussed foundation and antenna loading, FAA height review and logistics; a 75‑foot straight tower has been ordered and staff expect foundation work and tower erection over late summer/fall.
A vendor and contractor presented detailed plans and timelines for a new communications tower the county intends to install at its facility, and commissioners reviewed foundation, antenna loading, FAA and logistics considerations.
The contractor introduced himself as Russ Ryzaak and described his company’s experience installing towers and foundations. The presentation set out two tower options discussed in the meeting: a straight 75‑foot tower (which a presenter said had been ordered) and a tapered 55‑foot design with different foundation footprints. Discussion focused on foundation size (a 10‑foot square pier was cited), antenna loading capacity (designs discussed capacity for multiple sidearms and as many as ~22 antenna positions in the higher design), shipping and crane logistics (the top 20‑foot section and its shipping costs were flagged) and coordination with ongoing courthouse exterior work.
Staff noted the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) typically takes 45 days to render a determination on the allowable height; commissioners discussed ordering a 75‑foot straight tower with the option to add sections later if FAA approval allows more height. The vendor described a construction schedule that could see a poured foundation in August and tower erection by late September, provided equipment and contractor schedules allow. Site logistics—locating underground utilities, removing some landscape rock and ensuring the tower foundation would not interfere with the courthouse footer—were discussed; the contractor said he would coordinate locates and testing and would work to limit damage to existing landscaping.
Commissioners asked who would move rooftop Internet equipment over to the new tower; staff identified a local Internet company, Mountain West, that had equipment on the courthouse roof and said that company planned to transfer its equipment to the tower at a later date. The board ended the presentation by walking the site to review the proposed tower location; no procurement vote was recorded in the public portion of the meeting.
Commissioners said they will continue coordination with the contractor, the county facilities staff and the company that maintains rooftop equipment to finalize schedule and logistics.
