[HamWAN PSDR] Cell Sites on DNR Towers

Mon Nov 15 10:03:06 PST 2021

While everything below is true and valid, let us not overlook the fact that amateur operators (including HamWAN) have moved onto sites without obtaining a lease, and in violation of the lease terms of those (who have leases) who have allowed them on to those sites.  This is a complex issue, and requires proper actions on the part of all players. Hams are suffering the consequences at the moment, but they are as much to blame as anyone else.  I DO support HamWAN, I DO believe it is essential and important to regional EmComm. But it does need to be done properly.
Carl, N7KUW

-----Original Message-----
From: PSDR <psdr-bounces at hamwan.org> On Behalf Of Steve - WA7PTM
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 9:44 AM
To: Puget Sound Data Ring <psdr at hamwan.org>
Subject: Re: [HamWAN PSDR] Cell Sites on DNR Towers

Contacting legislators seeking their advice on how to handle this situation will likely win more respect for the individuals and the amateur radio community in general.  Approaching the Commissioner of Public Lands, Hilary Franz, is the protocol that will likely be advised. 
  Being elected, she does not report to the Governor, but the DNR budget is under legislative control.

There are other factors in play here:
1. DNR staff violation of the Washington Administrative Procedures Act, RCW Chapter 34.05.
2. DNR staff violation of the Washington Open Public Meetings Act of 1971, RCW 42.30.035 (no minutes) and RCW 42.30.060 (development of their new "standards").
3. Ineptitude on the part of the DNR staff in missing windows where they had the opportunity to approach the legislature with updated reimbursement requests under RCW 79.13.500.
4. Violation of lease terms by the DNR staff regarding notification and remedy periods.

Steve

Dana Hanford wrote on 11/15/21 9:41 AM:
> Stephen and John, thanks for your responses.  It seems that a concerted lobbying effort is needed.
> 
> Dana
> 
> From: PSDR <psdr-bounces at hamwan.org> On Behalf Of Stephen Kangas
> Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 9:24 AM
> To: 'Puget Sound Data Ring' <psdr at hamwan.org>
> Subject: Re: [HamWAN PSDR] Cell Sites on DNR Towers
> 
> There is already a WA state law,  RCW 79.13.500 (https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=79.13.500#:~:text=RCW%2079.13.500%20Amateur%20radio%20repeater%20stations%20%E2%80%94%20Legislative,in%20disaster%20relief%20and%20search%20and%20rescue%20support), requiring reduced lease costs for ham equipment installed at DNR sites…ie hams do NOT pay commercial rates and DNR’s hands are currently tied on changing that to charge hams commercial rates (not a good idea since that alone would drive hams off nearly all DNR sites).  The issue is that DNR is supposed to be reimbursed with the difference between what ham and commercial rates by the WA legislature in their budget, and it’s a bit unclear as to whether DNR has been taking that money for other purposes and demanding more from the legislature or whether the legislature has not earmarked any line item for that reimbursement.  Therefore, DNR is currently taking the position of reducing the number of hams at any one site to some number (my bet is one ham) to both comply with the RCW and create more “space” for commercial clients that they hope to gain.  Some commercial industry pros who install and maintain radios believe the market for thatstead is declining, so DNR may be experiencing a pipedream, but that is an irrelevant aside for now.
> 
> Yes, lobbying your elected head of DNR, Hillary Franz, governor Inslee, and of course state representative/senator for your district is important IMO.  Having the backing of your local emcomm ham team, city/county EOC, in addition to electric/water/gas utilities, is a factor as it has an more severe impact on them as compared to the ragchewers.
> 
> Stephen W9SK
> 
> 
> From: PSDR <psdr-bounces at hamwan.org<mailto:psdr-bounces at hamwan.org>> On Behalf Of Dana Hanford
> Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 8:43 AM
> To: Puget Sound Data Ring <psdr at hamwan.org<mailto:psdr at hamwan.org>>
> Subject: Re: [HamWAN PSDR] Cell Sites on DNR Towers
> 
> I may have missed it, but I don’t recall seeing an answer to John Hays’ question about lobbying efforts to change the DNR policy regarding charging commercial rates to hams for DNR site use.  I am disturbed about losing these sites for HamWAN and other amateur uses that have a greater public value in support of public safety/disaster communications.  It may be the 11th hour but perhaps it is not too late to start lobbying.
> 
> 73 de,
> 
> Dana
> 
> Dana Hanford, Jr., CPMR, KC7SDD
> Vice President / Partner
> The Sales Group, inc.
> MANUFACTURERS REPRESENTATIVES
> 7641 NE North Street
> Bainbridge Island, WA 98110-1057
> O: (206) 842-9076
> C: (206) 660-7147
> www.thesalesgroup.com<http://www.thesalesgroup.com/>
> 
> Proud Member of:
> 
> [Logo  Description automatically generated]<https://www.apcointl.org/>[cid:image002.jpg at 01D7DA04.F68D2AD0]<https://www.nena.org/>[Logo  Description automatically generated]<https://radioclubofamerica.org/>
> 
> From: PSDR <psdr-bounces at hamwan.org<mailto:psdr-bounces at hamwan.org>> On Behalf Of John D. Hays
> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 8:35 AM
> To: Puget Sound Data Ring <psdr at hamwan.org<mailto:psdr at hamwan.org>>
> Subject: Re: [HamWAN PSDR] Cell Sites on DNR Towers
> 
> About 10 years ago, DNR was going to start charging amateur repeaters commercial rates to use DNR sites.  I recall there was an active information campaign to the legislature and the legislature instructed DNR to maintain the amateur radio rates.  I recall ARRL was involved as well.  What has been done with your legislators and the Governor's office to see what they are willing to do?
> 
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 11:05 PM Jamie Owens <jlowens76 at gmail.com<mailto:jlowens76 at gmail.com>> wrote:
> Maybe also throw in HamWAN Cam's helped catch a wildfire early on. http://www.arrl.org/news/ham-radio-wireless-network-camera-detects-washington-wildfire
> 
> Sad things like this go un-noticed/recognized
> 
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 10:19 PM Dale Skyllingstad <dskyllingstad at harbornet.com<mailto:dskyllingstad at harbornet.com>> wrote:
> This is very unfortunate news.  Perhaps we can draft a letter to our state legislators explaining our situation with the DNR, and detailing our network's contribution toward state emergency communications.  Maybe even including an example of our wildfire report last year?
> 
> Dale
> AH6ET
> On 10/18/2021 10:07 PM, Nigel Vander Houwen wrote:
> Hello HamWAN volunteers/users/interested parties,
> 
> As has been previously discussed on the list, there has been a lot of happenings in the background over roughly the last year with regards to DNR sites. We’ve had several sites in limbo for some time as lease holders worked with DNR to sort things out, and we had some hopeful indications that it would end up working out in the end.
> 
> Unfortunately indications have greatly soured. As discussed in recent weeks, Rattlesnake and Larch Mountain were decommissioned recently, and we’ve now received official word that we’ll need to decommission Gold Mountain in the coming weeks. As much as I’d like it to end there, we are not holding our breath for Capitol Peak or Blyn.
> 
> Unfortunately new rules DNR has placed on amateur leases effectively exclude use cases like HamWAN, if they were offering them at all due to DNR budget issues, and commercial rates are simply not feasible. I’m sure folks will think/suggest about additional donations to cover it, but commercial rates would require many-fold our current donation levels EVERY YEAR to make work. It’s simply not something we can reasonably consider.
> 
> I’m very sorry to have to deliver this news to the many folks this will impact. This is obviously a major blow for the network. I’m thankful for the team who has put so much effort into building out these sites and maintaining the infrastructure, and I’m saddened to see that work torn down. Likewise I know there are quite a number of combined users, repeaters, and emergency groups who are going to be impacted by this. I hope that we can work with you to get you connected to another site where the pathing works.
> 
> We’re not done. There’s a lot of the core network, and a lot of coverage that doesn’t rely on these DNR sites, and will remain operational. We’ll likely need to do some work to reconsider/rework redundant pathing after this loss. Going forward I’m hopeful for finding new non-DNR sites where we can rebuild and expand once more.
> 
> If anyone has any specific notes or suggestions, please send us an email at netops at hamwan.org<mailto:netops at hamwan.org>
> 
> Nigel
> HamWAN
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> PSDR mailing list
> 
> PSDR at hamwan.org<mailto:PSDR at hamwan.org>
> 
> http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PSDR mailing list
> PSDR at hamwan.org<mailto:PSDR at hamwan.org>
> http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
> 
> 
> --
> Thanks,
> Jamie Owens
> _______________________________________________
> PSDR mailing list
> PSDR at hamwan.org<mailto:PSDR at hamwan.org>
> http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
> 
> 
> --
> John D. Hays
> Kingston, WA
> K7VE / WRJT-215
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PSDR mailing list
> PSDR at hamwan.org
> http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
> 
_______________________________________________
PSDR mailing list
PSDR at hamwan.org
http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr