Lyn's note: Please feel free to send us any pictures you'd like included. If your photos are for sale, let us know and we will put them under that category. We have a special section for that purpose. If anyone would like to buy a print of any of Herbert's photos, all profits will be donated to one of the local non-profit organizations. Here is the link to this week's Pictures of the Week.
http://carefreeazbusinesses.com/pictures-of-the-week-21918.html
http://carefreeazbusinesses.com/pictures-of-the-week-21918.html
Photo by Paul Maley
Here is your bonus round from Herbert.
http://aneyeonyouproduction.com/21618-sunset.html
Here is your bonus round from Herbert.
http://aneyeonyouproduction.com/21618-sunset.html
Photo by Herbert Hitchon
Town of Carefree Marketing newsletter
http://www.carefree.org/336/IN-THE-NEWS
CITYSunTimes link:
http://news.citysuntimes.com/
Hi Lyn,
I really look forward to reading your email updates. Wanted to thank you and your husband for introducing yourselves to me at the council meeting in January. Met a lot of friendly Carefree residents there, and my wife and kids also really feel at home here. Appreciated all of the support from people coming up and introducing themselves after I addressed the council about my desire to want to serve the community and be part of the town council. Mr. Hatcher is an outstanding choice and will serve the town well.
I look forward to running into more friendly people when I get coffee at Black Mountain Coffee Shop, walk to Bashas' and get donuts on Sunday mornings with the kids, or grabbing the mail...
Vince D'Aliesio
(Lyn's note: Vince was one of the candidates volunteering to fill the Council seat vacated by Jim Van Allen.)
Great to see Canon Dart still in Carefree and now president of Kiwanis. I also remember remember Megan as recipient of the scholarship in 2005.
Way to go Carefree Kiwanis. You are an example to which I often refer.
KGDS
Ed Morgan
(Lyn's note: Megan is partnered with Mark Peck, our dear friend and dentist.)
Kiwanis is a fantastic part of our community. They make many contributions and do many things that impact lives, most of which we are unaware. Herb’s photos that accompanied Cannon Darts’ presentation to Town Council were a very nice addition to your summary of his talk.
Best regards,
John Crane
Lyn:
Great issue relating to the comments of Father Dart and the Kiwanis Club.
As a former Kiwanian in (Kansas City, MO) 1968, I later became a member of the Rotary Club. The Rotary Clubs, like the Kiwanis Club, would meet weekly for lunch. Club members would be the “program committee” bringing about great speakers on a variety of topics. Every now and again, the Rotary Club would have a speaker who happened to be a Kiwanian. If I heard it once, I heard it many times: “The Rotary Club owns the town, but the Kiwanis Club runs the town.” That was later changed with the addition of, “and the Lions Club has all the fun.”
You provide a wonderful example of how service clubs benefit our communities in a far better way than federal or state governments can ever do. No red tape, no silly rules and regulations, they just get it done with community-minded volunteer citizens.
I know that you always promote the Kiwanis Pancake Breakfasts. Father Dart’s remarks and your issues of Carefree Truth are splendid reminders that we should all do our best to participate in their fund-raising activities.
Arthur Gimson
Lyn,
Thank you so much for publishing our church’s announcement regarding the Fountain Hills Sax Quartet performance. It was a fabulous afternoon of music and was well attended. Your announcement went a long way toward that attendance.
Gail Thiele
Publicity committee member
Desert Hills Presbyterian Church
Town of Carefree Marketing newsletter
http://www.carefree.org/336/IN-THE-NEWS
CITYSunTimes link:
http://news.citysuntimes.com/
Hi Lyn,
I really look forward to reading your email updates. Wanted to thank you and your husband for introducing yourselves to me at the council meeting in January. Met a lot of friendly Carefree residents there, and my wife and kids also really feel at home here. Appreciated all of the support from people coming up and introducing themselves after I addressed the council about my desire to want to serve the community and be part of the town council. Mr. Hatcher is an outstanding choice and will serve the town well.
I look forward to running into more friendly people when I get coffee at Black Mountain Coffee Shop, walk to Bashas' and get donuts on Sunday mornings with the kids, or grabbing the mail...
Vince D'Aliesio
(Lyn's note: Vince was one of the candidates volunteering to fill the Council seat vacated by Jim Van Allen.)
Great to see Canon Dart still in Carefree and now president of Kiwanis. I also remember remember Megan as recipient of the scholarship in 2005.
Way to go Carefree Kiwanis. You are an example to which I often refer.
KGDS
Ed Morgan
(Lyn's note: Megan is partnered with Mark Peck, our dear friend and dentist.)
Kiwanis is a fantastic part of our community. They make many contributions and do many things that impact lives, most of which we are unaware. Herb’s photos that accompanied Cannon Darts’ presentation to Town Council were a very nice addition to your summary of his talk.
Best regards,
John Crane
Lyn:
Great issue relating to the comments of Father Dart and the Kiwanis Club.
As a former Kiwanian in (Kansas City, MO) 1968, I later became a member of the Rotary Club. The Rotary Clubs, like the Kiwanis Club, would meet weekly for lunch. Club members would be the “program committee” bringing about great speakers on a variety of topics. Every now and again, the Rotary Club would have a speaker who happened to be a Kiwanian. If I heard it once, I heard it many times: “The Rotary Club owns the town, but the Kiwanis Club runs the town.” That was later changed with the addition of, “and the Lions Club has all the fun.”
You provide a wonderful example of how service clubs benefit our communities in a far better way than federal or state governments can ever do. No red tape, no silly rules and regulations, they just get it done with community-minded volunteer citizens.
I know that you always promote the Kiwanis Pancake Breakfasts. Father Dart’s remarks and your issues of Carefree Truth are splendid reminders that we should all do our best to participate in their fund-raising activities.
Arthur Gimson
Lyn,
Thank you so much for publishing our church’s announcement regarding the Fountain Hills Sax Quartet performance. It was a fabulous afternoon of music and was well attended. Your announcement went a long way toward that attendance.
Gail Thiele
Publicity committee member
Desert Hills Presbyterian Church
(Lyn's note: These are Phyllis Strupp's follow up questions about the antennae on the Water Company property, and Greg Crossman's answers after doing some research. Thanks, Greg.)
Hi Greg and Lyn,
Thank you so much for this additional info, I really appreciate it. Some additional questions:
1. What is the aggregate RF effect from all three users—MC, RM and SN?
2. From my understanding, the FCC RF limit applies to the thermal effect on biological tissue, but this effect can be amplified from environmental factors such as metal (e.g. the water towers) and heat. Was Motorola’s statistic based on hot desert conditions like ours? What will the town of Carefree do to monitor compliance with the FCC standard? Compliance with the standard seems to be an issue in other parts of the country.
3. Given the residential nature of the installation’s location, did the town consider this potential adverse effect on local homeowner’s property values?
4. What is the change in height (if any) above the existing structures?
Truly, as a health-conscious homeowner in this area, I believe this proposal appeared non-controversial because so few knew about it ahead of time.
Phyllis Strupp
Hi Phyllis and Lyn,
Thanks so much for your patience while I investigated the answers to your follow-up questions. The following is a summary of the information I’ve obtained:
Question 1: What is the aggregate RF effect from all three users—MC, RM and SN?
Response 1: On the surface that seems like a simple question, but it is actually fairly complex and let me relay why. FCC guidelines are published in OET (Office of Engineering & Technology) Bulletin 65, Edition 97-01. RF exposure limits are determined by transmission frequency which are broken down into 5 frequency ranges from 0.3 MHz (Megahertz) to 100 GHz (Gigahertz). Exposure limits are different in each of the 5 categories. The 3 different users at the Silver Saddle site are in 3 different and distinct frequency categories with 3 different and distinct exposure limits. Therefore, aggregating these 3 users together is not a simple or even well-defined process as far as I can tell. We already have the calculations for the County installation (my previous response to your first question) showing very low exposure numbers (a maximum of about 14% of the limit), and I am working with the 2 other users (RM and SN) to get you numbers for their facilities. I am also talking to people who have expertise in this area on a reasonable way to “aggregate” these numbers together. For right now, I think it’s safe to say that the power level for all 3 users is at a low enough level that all three are categorically exempt from any additional environmental studies to quantify their RF emissions and that any reasonable “aggregation” of emissions will also fall well below any levels of concern. Nevertheless, I am working with each user so we can get a reasonable aggregate number together.
Question 2: From my understanding, the FCC RF limit applies to the thermal effect on biological tissue, but this effect can be amplified from environmental factors such as metal (e.g. the water towers) and heat. Was Motorola’s statistic based on hot desert conditions like ours? What will the town of Carefree do to monitor compliance with the FCC standard? Compliance with the standard seems to be an issue in other parts of the country?
Response 2: My research and discussions with those who have expertise in this area does not indicate that water tanks (one is metal and one is concrete) are an issue with RF emissions nor is our desert heat. As far as follow-up monitoring/reporting, the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approved for each of the users requires that, “A report demonstrating compliance with Federal standards for radio frequency emissions shall be submitted to the Town every three years.”
Question 3: Given the residential nature of the installation’s location, did the town consider this potential adverse effect on local homeowner’s property values?
Response 3: Together with the two 150,000 gallon water tanks, there is an existing tower/antenna on the site used for the Town’s Emergency Communications network. This tower/antenna is the major communications feature on the site and will be replaced by Rural/Metro with a similar one, but slightly shorter. The other additions to the site will be a faux Saguaro for the County and an approximately 15 ft. antenna on the north side of the site for Sonoran Networks. From a CUP perspective, the Silver Saddle site has been operating as a water infrastructure facility since the late 1960’s and the Town emergency communications system since the early 2000’s. Therefore, while the communication system upgrade and addition of Rural Metro and Sonoran Networks is a modification to the site, it does not change the use of the property. The communication upgrade has also not introduced a new utility use to this area and is not changing the overall intent of the facility. Impact on pre- and post-property values are expected to be minimal, but only a certified appraiser would be qualified to make a final determination on actual impact on appraised valuations.
Question 4: What is the change in height (if any) above the existing structures?
Response 4: The existing tower/antenna on the site is 55 feet in height. The new tower/antenna that Rural/Metro will be installing is limited to 45 feet in height and the actual height is expected to be 42 feet or lower. The change in height with the new Rural/Metro installation is therefore expected to be at least 13 feet lower than what is currently existing.
As soon as I receive additional information from RM and SN, I will pass that along to you.
Sincerely,
Greg Crossman
Hi Greg and Lyn,
Thank you so much for this additional info, I really appreciate it. Some additional questions:
1. What is the aggregate RF effect from all three users—MC, RM and SN?
2. From my understanding, the FCC RF limit applies to the thermal effect on biological tissue, but this effect can be amplified from environmental factors such as metal (e.g. the water towers) and heat. Was Motorola’s statistic based on hot desert conditions like ours? What will the town of Carefree do to monitor compliance with the FCC standard? Compliance with the standard seems to be an issue in other parts of the country.
3. Given the residential nature of the installation’s location, did the town consider this potential adverse effect on local homeowner’s property values?
4. What is the change in height (if any) above the existing structures?
Truly, as a health-conscious homeowner in this area, I believe this proposal appeared non-controversial because so few knew about it ahead of time.
Phyllis Strupp
Hi Phyllis and Lyn,
Thanks so much for your patience while I investigated the answers to your follow-up questions. The following is a summary of the information I’ve obtained:
Question 1: What is the aggregate RF effect from all three users—MC, RM and SN?
Response 1: On the surface that seems like a simple question, but it is actually fairly complex and let me relay why. FCC guidelines are published in OET (Office of Engineering & Technology) Bulletin 65, Edition 97-01. RF exposure limits are determined by transmission frequency which are broken down into 5 frequency ranges from 0.3 MHz (Megahertz) to 100 GHz (Gigahertz). Exposure limits are different in each of the 5 categories. The 3 different users at the Silver Saddle site are in 3 different and distinct frequency categories with 3 different and distinct exposure limits. Therefore, aggregating these 3 users together is not a simple or even well-defined process as far as I can tell. We already have the calculations for the County installation (my previous response to your first question) showing very low exposure numbers (a maximum of about 14% of the limit), and I am working with the 2 other users (RM and SN) to get you numbers for their facilities. I am also talking to people who have expertise in this area on a reasonable way to “aggregate” these numbers together. For right now, I think it’s safe to say that the power level for all 3 users is at a low enough level that all three are categorically exempt from any additional environmental studies to quantify their RF emissions and that any reasonable “aggregation” of emissions will also fall well below any levels of concern. Nevertheless, I am working with each user so we can get a reasonable aggregate number together.
Question 2: From my understanding, the FCC RF limit applies to the thermal effect on biological tissue, but this effect can be amplified from environmental factors such as metal (e.g. the water towers) and heat. Was Motorola’s statistic based on hot desert conditions like ours? What will the town of Carefree do to monitor compliance with the FCC standard? Compliance with the standard seems to be an issue in other parts of the country?
Response 2: My research and discussions with those who have expertise in this area does not indicate that water tanks (one is metal and one is concrete) are an issue with RF emissions nor is our desert heat. As far as follow-up monitoring/reporting, the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approved for each of the users requires that, “A report demonstrating compliance with Federal standards for radio frequency emissions shall be submitted to the Town every three years.”
Question 3: Given the residential nature of the installation’s location, did the town consider this potential adverse effect on local homeowner’s property values?
Response 3: Together with the two 150,000 gallon water tanks, there is an existing tower/antenna on the site used for the Town’s Emergency Communications network. This tower/antenna is the major communications feature on the site and will be replaced by Rural/Metro with a similar one, but slightly shorter. The other additions to the site will be a faux Saguaro for the County and an approximately 15 ft. antenna on the north side of the site for Sonoran Networks. From a CUP perspective, the Silver Saddle site has been operating as a water infrastructure facility since the late 1960’s and the Town emergency communications system since the early 2000’s. Therefore, while the communication system upgrade and addition of Rural Metro and Sonoran Networks is a modification to the site, it does not change the use of the property. The communication upgrade has also not introduced a new utility use to this area and is not changing the overall intent of the facility. Impact on pre- and post-property values are expected to be minimal, but only a certified appraiser would be qualified to make a final determination on actual impact on appraised valuations.
Question 4: What is the change in height (if any) above the existing structures?
Response 4: The existing tower/antenna on the site is 55 feet in height. The new tower/antenna that Rural/Metro will be installing is limited to 45 feet in height and the actual height is expected to be 42 feet or lower. The change in height with the new Rural/Metro installation is therefore expected to be at least 13 feet lower than what is currently existing.
As soon as I receive additional information from RM and SN, I will pass that along to you.
Sincerely,
Greg Crossman
Another factor to consider regarding internet speeds is the ability to apply smart applications to many of home devices and tie them together. Such devices as your thermostats, security system, remote access, garage doors, lights, audio/video, shades/curtains and the list goes on . . . All this requires sufficient internet speeds. A current resident may not desire this technology but the next generation does and thus there is a significant correlation to home values.
Gary Neiss, Town Administrator
Town of Carefree
Dear Ms. Strupp,
The Conditional Use Permits, which were approved by Town Council on January 9, 2018, include a provision for annual reporting. That information will be public record and available upon request. The reporting requirement will commence once the facility has been constructed and is operational.
Regards,
Stacey Bridge-Denzak
Planning Director
Town of Carefree
This is good to know. Thanks Stacey,
Phyllis
Gary Neiss, Town Administrator
Town of Carefree
Dear Ms. Strupp,
The Conditional Use Permits, which were approved by Town Council on January 9, 2018, include a provision for annual reporting. That information will be public record and available upon request. The reporting requirement will commence once the facility has been constructed and is operational.
Regards,
Stacey Bridge-Denzak
Planning Director
Town of Carefree
This is good to know. Thanks Stacey,
Phyllis