Cell Tower Lease Tabled

Panel Holds Off On Extention

Thursday, January 10, 2013

— A cell tower in the middle of the aquatic center parking lot is distracting from the aesthetic view of the multimillion dollar project, some city officials said.

Members of the City Council Community Services Committee tabled Tuesday an ordinance before it went to the City Council for discussion, requesting an extension of the land lease for the cell tower.

Alderwoman Betsy Reithemeyer called the cell tower an eyesore.

“We have a $13 million aquatic center scheduled to open later this year, and the first thing people see is not the aquatic center, but the cell tower in the parking lot,” Reithemeyer said. “I suggest we let the lease expire and have the telecommunication company move the tower to another location.”

Reithemeyer represents Ward 4. The aquatic park is in Ward 2. City officials said they received no complaints about the tower.

At A Glance

Cell Tower

City leaders tabled Tuesday a proposed extension of a lease agreement for a cell tower in the parking lot of the new aquatic center on South 26th Street. Three companies are bidding on the lease scheduled to expire in 2017.

• American Tower Corp. holds the current lease and pays the city $18,885 per year for the lease. The company is offering to raise the annual payment to $43,885 with a 3 percent increase per year for a 30-year lease.

• Tristar Investors Inc. is offering the city $25,000 now and $33,000 per year or 50 percent of the tower revenue, whichever is higher, for a perpetual land lease.

• Communications Capital Group offered the city a $301,000 lump sum payment for a perpetual lease, or a $271,000 lump sum payment for a 25-year lease.

Source: Staff Report

The cell tower became an issue because at least three telecommunication companies are trying to negotiate with the city to extend the lease. The lease is scheduled to expire in 2017, said David Hook, city facilities development manager.

“The leasing company starts trying to renegotiate the lease about five years before the lease expires,” Hook said. “The company needs to have a longer term lease or it’s difficult to negotiate new contracts with cellphone companies for tower usage.”

The cell tower has been in the same location for 16 years at the former baseball and softball complex.

“The tower wasn’t an issue when it was a ball field, but I think it is now because the water park is going to bring thousands of visitors to the city,” said 3rd District Rep. Steve Womack, R-Rogers, and a former Rogers mayor, who attended the meeting Tuesday.

American Tower Corp. pays the city $18,885 per year on the lease.

Tristar Investors Inc. and Communications Capital Group are interested in leasing the land.

Tristar offered the city $25,000 immediately and $33,000 per year or 50 percent of the tower revenue in perpetuity for the land lease.

Communications Capital offered the city a $301,000 lump sum payment for a perpetual lease, or a $271,000 lump sum payment for a 25-year lease.

American Tower offered the city $43,885 per year with a 3 percent increase per year for a 30-year lease.

Jesse Wellner of Communications Capital said he wasn’t familiar with the tower situation in Rogers.

If the city allows the tower lease to expire, there are factors involved in moving a tower, Wellner said.

“It depends on where an available roof tower as a base station is located and what companies are using the tower,” Wellner said. “Sometime it’s not easy to locate an available roof tower as a base.”

The other two communication companies were contacted for comment but didn’t return phones calls by press time.

Goodwin asked Hook for his recommendation.

“I have no recommendation on whether to extend the lease,” Hook said. “That decision would rest with the council. The only recommendation I would make is that American Tower offers the best financial deal.”

Reithemeyer, handing out color photos of the cell tower, told the committee members she didn’t believe extending the lease was worth the revenue.

“Telecommunications is a rapidly changing industry,” she said. “Who knows what the cellphone technology will be in the next 30 years? I don’t favor giving a company a 30-year or longer lease for a tower that could be moved elsewhere. I think we should forgo the revenue to clean up the appearance of our water park. I urge you to table this for two weeks so we can have a better discussion.”

“The council has made some legacy decisions in the past that were hard to make at the time but were good for the city,” Womack said. “I think it’s time for another difficult decision that’s good for the city.”

Alderman Gary Townzen said Wednesday he was torn on the issue.

“I didn’t know when I went to the council meeting how I would vote,” he said. “I don’t think anybody would say the tower looks good where it is. I’m just not sure about losing the revenue. I lean toward removal of the tower, but I need more information before I have to make a decision on this in two weeks.”