Brian, Do you have any links to the federal law requiring another tower be allowed to be built in lieu of the zoning?
Thanks. On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 3:54 PM Brian Webster <i...@wirelessmapping.com> wrote: > Lewis covers a lot of the points I would. > > > > I have done some consulting for a university that was approached > similarly. The tower company was fixated on some parts of the lease but > never focused on things like escalations and such. We did the amortizations > of the escalators and they still over time would exceed the rent they are > collecting. So moral of the story is make sure he get in writing the > document they would like to renegotiate before you put too much time in it. > Have them produce an executable version, not just an email highlighting > what they want to do. In the end the legal signed document is the only > thing that matters. > > > > Other points to consider. They are calling your bluff. The amount you want > to negotiate back you need to know seriously what their other options are. > Strict zoning is one thing but one of the justifications for forcing a > municipality to allow a new tower by federal law is the economic clause. > They could easily make the case for a new tower if they can prove that > their rent will exceed the rent they receive, but beware. Their lease with > eh carrier may have clauses to deal with that and they can increase the > rent to the carrier based on their ground lease. This is not always the > case though. > > > > Look at the tower companies termination options. Do they have the right to > terminate at each 5 year renewal? Are they required to return the site back > to previous state prior to building? Does the landowner have the right to > assume the tower in its current state if they chose not to renew? All > serious points to consider in their offer for renegotiation. If it is > possible for the landowner to keep the tower if they terminate that might > be a good move and then just sign a reasonable lease with the carrier and > keep the revenue. But if the tower company wants to play hard ball they may > take the tower down with no option for the landowner to keep it standing, > that would include ripping up the tower foundation. > > > > Have the landowner clearly research and understand all of these points. > Then decide if renegotiation is smart. Better to have the site stay there > producing revenue even if it is less, than to possibly lose all totally in > the near future. But the legal documents are going to be that key. Also > research the tax implications on taking the lump sum option. In some cases > that might get taxed at over 50%. > > > > Bottom line, play devil’s advocate and think about what the worst case > situation is going to be with your decision. > > > > > > Thank you, > > Brian Webster > > www.wirelessmapping.com > > > > *From:* AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Lewis Bergman > *Sent:* Wednesday, April 8, 2020 2:24 PM > *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] American Tower trying to renegotiate Tower Lease > with landlord > > > > Lots of things to talk about here but lets hit the high points. Tower > companies are getting squeezed by carriers. > > 1. First I'll say I really don't like term escalations, I favor > annual. Since they are already trying to back down their costs that one is > a non starter but we can get back to that. > 2. A populated city is like saying a large lake. If you live next to > Superior, nothing is a large lake. What population are we talking about? > 3. Don't ever give anything without getting something. If your friend > is worried, maybe a smaller fixed payment and a large % of revenue would > reduce their risk and make he gets a fair share of the revenue. > 4. Look to recent municipal leases as they typically disclose a lot of > info about the final negotiations. > 5. Depending on his age, maybe the lump sum is a good deal, negotiated > higher of course. If he is looking for a good way to pass along revenue to > heirs, maybe not. > 6. He doesn't own the tower so can't negotiate directly with Verizon > unless he is going to build one or let them do it. > > I have seen Verizon (not American) move off of a tower and build one 1/4 > mile away when they didn't like terms. The terms were that they wanted a > tower completely rebuilt, but didn't want to pay any additional fees to > have it replaced for the extra load. So they will move. > > > > If it were me, not knowing anything else about the situation, I would come > back with $6000 per year, increase annually at 3% and 33% of the revenue > paid Jan1 for the prior year and see what happens. Annual audits with > unsolicieted revenue statements mailed yearly with the check., yada, yada. > I am making assumptions on what revenue might be since no pops were given. > > > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 11:05 AM Kurt Fankhauser <lists.wavel...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Someone I know owns a property with a mono-pole on it owned by American > Tower. The landowner has a pretty good lease IMO. They are getting $13,000 > lease payments annually that increase 15% every 5 years. The tower is > downtown in a populated city and Verizon is the only tenant on it and there > is not another cell tower within a mile of this one. > > > > The contract auto-renews every 5 years and coming up on its 2nd auto-renew > and American Tower has contacted them wanting to "re-negotiate the lease." > They say that the current terms are not "feasible" anymore and that they > might look for alternative sites and have made the following offer: > > • A one-time lump sum payment of $180,265.86 in exchange for a 99-year > term easement paid at close in lieu of rental payments > > OR > > > • $700.00 per month rent commencing 08-01-2020 > • 10% 5-year term escalation effective 08-01-2021 and every 5 years > thereafter > • Providing 6 terms of 5 years each, final expiration date will be > 07-31-2071 (current expiration is 7-31-2041) > > > > Both those offers are less than what the current lease payments are, the > one time buyout will break even in 15-20 years. So what I'm wondering here > is American Tower trying to pull their bluff on saying they will "look for > alternative sites" ? > > > > I don't really see them going through all the hassle to build another site > close to this one just to get a $400 cheaper/per month payment. Verizon > really needs this site downtown because there are no other towers close to > it and the city zoning is so strict that no new towers can be built. > > > > Any tips for dealing with the tower owner? > > > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > > > > > -- > > Lewis Bergman > > 325-439-0533 Cell > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >
-- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
