thanks for the link Lewis! On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 7:13 AM Lewis Bergman <lewis.berg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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 >
-- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
