But on Tuesday, the ordinance was brought back for another vote. This time, it passed by a 6-1 tally following a presentation that attempted to ease health concerns related to the technology and lay out the consequences of failing to comply with state and federal law.
Third Ward Commissioner Senita Lenear was the lone remaining opposition vote. She said she didn't feel comfortable making a decision without more knowledge to refute public health concerns related to more antennas and microwave radio-frequency radiation.
"What I don't want is my children and their children to suffer from a decision I've made today, knowing that I'm ignorant to the outcomes of that," Lenear said. "I personally can't support it."
First Ward Commissioner Jon O'Connor previously voted "no" on the ordinance, but changed his mind Tuesday. He said his "no" vote was a protest of the state and federal government taking away local control.
Second Ward Commissioner Ruth Kelly also flipped her vote.
"As we moved through this whole process, we were more focused on local control of the fees and the health issues were not so much on our radar so we also owe a debt of gratitude to our residents who came out in force and brought these concerns to our attention," Kelly said. "I do think we need to monitor this as well as pass it."
At the center of the issue is the installation of a dense network of small cell wireless utilities on telephone poles, traffic signals, signs and other similar structures in the public right-of-way. The infrastructure is part of the wireless industry's shift to next-generation technology (5G).
Legislation by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in January (Act 365), and the state of Michigan in March established regulations and fee limits for the installation of the small cell utilities.
Grand Rapids had until June 9 to adopt an ordinance to put the city in compliance with state law. Though the policy wasn't approved before the deadline, city staff said they don't anticipate negative consequences.
The local ordinance allows the city to be "as restrictive as possible under state law," according to city staff. It allows the city to potentially regulate the spacing of antennas and require insurance coverage, monitoring of RF emissions, and future Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) provisions if necessary.
Without it, outside counsel Alex Thibodeau said the city wouldn't be able to deny applications, which would gain automatic acceptance at the end of a "shot clock."
The initial vote was held June 4 and failed by a 3-3 vote, with Third Ward Commissioner Nathaniel Moody absent and thus unable to cast a vote. After it failed, City Manager Mark Washington said it would likely come back before the full commission if there was determined to be a significant legal risk associated with non-compliance.
The ordinance was place on Tuesday evening's commission agenda as a day-of add-on.
Before the vote, Alison Sutter, the city's sustainability manager, gave a brief presentation to the commission to address health concerns voiced by community members via emails and public comment.
In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified electromagnetic fields produced by cell phones as "possibly carcinogenic to humans," Sutter said. The determination, she said, means there's a casual association that's deemed credible but things like chance or bias haven't been "ruled out with reasonable confidence."
Another substance with the same determination is gasoline, she said.
More recently, Sutter said a number of groups have researched the public health impact and many -- including the National Cancer Institute, World Health Organization, European Union and Health Canada -- have concluded "there's no adverse health effects established but further research should be conducted."
Sutter cited a study in Montgomery County, Maryland, which found small cell technology needed to be deployed at least 11 feet from a dwelling unit to stay below the FCC exposure guidelines.
The Kent County Health Department hasn't conducted research or given a statement on the topic, Sutter said.
The state and federal legislation was backed by carriers such as Verizon and AT&T that are facing an ever-increasing demand for capacity, speed and reliability.
It was opposed by local governments, who considered it "an infringement on their ability to recover costs for the use of public rights of way," according to the Associated Press.
Mayor Rosalynn Bliss said the city opposed the legislation and sent staff to Lansing, in collaboration with other municipalities, to testify against it.
The city leadership received a letter Friday, June 7, from 10 residents who previously asked the commission not to adopt the ordinance due to health concerns. In the letter, penned by resident Nikki Moore, the group thanked the leaders for listening to the concerns.
"We are very grateful to know that the public is being heard by our officials," the letter stated, in part. "We thank all of you for being so open minded and for being concerned citizens. It was apparent that most of you struggled with the pros and cons of both sides of passing or not adopting the ordinance.
"We, too, see how the FCC and state has all but tied so many hands in this subject. We are grateful for your ethics."
©2019 The Grand Rapids Press, Mich. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
