School Cell Towers: Why RFP's Don't Work
Steel in the Air, Inc. regularly assists schools with cell tower leases on school district property. We represent schools and universities who see the upside of income that doesn't require a budget meeting or tax increases to procure. With the downturn in property tax valuations and increasing budgetary restraints, more and more schools are evaluating school cell towers as a source of income.
Recently, we went and spoke to a particular school board in south Florida as a member of the public in response to their consideration of the possibility of leasing school district property to cellular providers. Our particular objection to their proposed plan was that they intended to simply issue an Request for Proposals "RFP" in hopes that multiple parties would bid on the exclusive right to place towers on school district property. We objected to this option because we felt that it limits the value that the District procures from cell tower leases on school property. The District was looking to minimize the impact on its day to day operations by going with a single source vendor who would build, own, and operate the towers. They would evaluate District property and assist the District in marketing the property to wireless carriers. If they found interest, they would develop and pay for the cell tower on school land and manage it. In return, they split the revenue with the school district 50/50.
On the surface, this may seem like a good option. There are surely benefits to this type of plan.
- The District and the tower company's goals are typically aligned in that the tower company needs tenants if it intends to be profitable.
- The District gets to offload the negotiation of lease agreements to a third party vendor thereby decreasing staff time on the projects. (As anyone who regular negotiates leases on school district property knows- these are time consuming leases).
- The District gets a sizable amount of income- especially in more urban areas or in areas where
However, there are some potential issues with this type of plan for school cell towers.
- 50% of the revenue can be substantially less than the District would have received had it just negotiated the lease directly with the wireless carrier.
- In some cases, it is unlikely that more than one wireless carrier will use a particular location. As the tower company only gets 50% that may not be enough to justify building the tower. As such, the District forgoes whatever revenue it could have negotiated directly for the lease.
- The District can give up some of its control over the placement of towers on its own property.
- Some districts have experienced significant public opposition to cell towers on school property on the basis of the sometimes irrational concerns about radio frequency radiation.
- Despite some common goals, the tower company and the District will inevitably have different goals because the tower company exists solely to make money off the operation of the towers.
The biggest issue we had with this particular District is that they assumed that an RFP would effectively bring in bidders. However, what they don't know is that the way they intend to craft the RFP will limit the number of bidders. The large tower companies don't do 50% revenue sharing. There are some tower companies that would be interested in building cell towers at schools, but they aren't likely to see the RFP. The wireless carriers won't bid because they would simply prefer to let a tower company deal with the burden and cost. The District is unlikely to know how to find small tower companies who aren't likely to read or follow school district RFPs. So the District constituents get the short end of the stick because the RFP ends up being bid on by one or two companies. To make matters worse, these bidders almost always know that RFP's for school sites will only be bid on by one or two companies and therefore aren't forced to bid competitively.
Our suggestion is that school districts retain outside experts to assist them in determining the most profitable way of leasing space for school cell towers. We can review the District's goals and help guide you on the method that will maximize your revenue while minimizing the headache to the district. It might be that one vendor is suitable or perhaps multiple vendors. Alternatively, perhaps the District could consider building and owning the towers themselves. Please contact us if you are school district looking to increase its revenue while minimizing the administrative burden from dealing with the wireless providers. We can provide non-biased advice on how best to accomplish BOTH of these goals. Please also see our webpage on municipalities building their own towers.
Labels: cell towers, municipality, school cell tower
Irresponsible School Boards and Churches
At Steel in the Air, Inc, we have assisted a number of municipalities with cell phone tower lease proposals at schools. We have also provided guidance to a number of schools, both public and private across the United States.
To our surprise, in some circumstances there has been little to no public opposition to the proposal to place a tower at a school or a church. The surprise comes from the fact that rarely are tower proposals at schools and churches unopposed by local residents. These residents rally to the cry that "towers will cause unknown health problems in our children" regardless of whether they have studied the issue or not. This post is not to suggest that these parents are rationally protective or hysterically uninformed, but to suggest that schools and churches should know in advance that parents will in all likelihood object to the proposed cell phone tower at the church or school. And that such opponents can become very vociferous and actionable.
In a recent newspaper article, "
Cell tower plan on tap for Middletown zoners" in the
Ashbury Park Press, a local School Board requested that it's attorney send a letter to Verizon AFTER they had already signed a lease to allow a cell tower on school board property. "This letter is written at the unanimous direction of the Board of Education, to advise you that due to overwhelming pressure and expressed concerns from the citizens of
Middletown, the Board is hereby requesting the cancellation of parties' Agreement prior to the completion of Verizon's application process and the Commencement Date of the Agreement." There are numerous other situations that we are aware of where the same thing
occurred. Some of Steel in the Air's own clients have contacted us after they signed a lease to inquire whether they can terminate it because of significant public opposition. We now tell all of our school/church clients that they need to assess whether they can accept opposition from neighbors before they sign.
My issue with the position of the school is not that they would object to the placement of a tower on school property. It is clearly their right and obligation to protect the children at the school. While I believe that towers are fundamentally safe with rare exception, I don't question the board's right to make a decision that the income may not be worth it.
However, I object specifically to the ignorance of this school board in not considering the issue prior to voting to accept the lease. They clearly like the dollar signs but failed to consider the possible adverse reaction. All they would have had to do is read the paper or search the Internet for hundreds of stories whereby there was opposition to a cell tower on the basis of health. And in failing to do so, the board was irresponsible.
Since the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and subsequent case law prevents local zoning officers and boards from denying a tower proposal on the basis of health- the residents turned their anger to the school district. The School Board caved to the pressure of the residents and chose to not honor their word/contract with Verizon. In essence, their negligence may cost Verizon a minimum of $30,000 in site acquisition costs, architectural and engineering services, environmental review, tower manufacturer fees, and the like. In the end, this all could have been avoided had the School Board acted responsibly rather than on public pressure. A contract is a contract. I assume that Verizon could bring an action for breach of lease and for damages- but suit against a school district may not be an publicly acceptable course of action.
In the future, perhaps other school boards or churches might actually consider the potential ramifications from approving a cell tower on school district property before they simply negotiate fiscal terms and sign a lease. It would save both the wireless carrier and the school board a significant amount of aggravation.
Labels: cell phone tower lease, church cell tower, school cell tower, verizon
