https://www.fcc.gov/wireless/bureau-divisions/competition-infrastructure-policy-division/tower-and-antenna-siting
On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 11:37 PM Kurt Fankhauser <lists.wavel...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > -- Lewis Bergman 325-439-0533 Cell
-- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
