I wanted to dig a little deeper into the Verizon cell phone tower proposal. For those who might not know the township has been approached to lease land on the Kratzer farm for a 120 ft cell phone tower which would enhance service for Verizon customers. There is a possibility that more carriers could also piggy back off the tower in the future as well. This would result in monthly payments to the township. We’ve been initially offered 1800/mo with 2.5% increases year on a 20 year term leases re-negotiated every 5 years. I am currently looking into the market rates for other poles on public property across the Valley. Very interested to see how this offer stacks up.
Nuts & bolts.
1. It’s actually not Verizon who we’re dealing with rather a third party leasing agent who negotiates on behalf of the carrier. These firms are typically paid in performance bonuses for bringing in leases at lower rates and favorable terms.
2. There is a definite service issue for Verizon customers in and around the East Texas area. This includes the neighborhoods around WLES and into Shepherd Hills. This pole will solve these issues for 1000’s of residents. The issue is both capacity and also bandwidth as more and more folks use “heavy data” with smart phones.
When we were approached, first at the planning and zoning committee level neither Commissioner Lancsek or I had a problem with kicking up the conversation to the full board level. (I also don’t believe issues should stall or be killed in committees at the local level)
While I have not made up my mind I am genuinely interested in learning more about the proposal and of course intrigued by the potential for a stable monthly income. As I stated last night, I would insist the money be earmarked for the park system since the location would be our largest passive park. I would likely take this a step further and insist that the money at first be earmarked for a Kratzer farm comprehensive planning effort.
I also stated last night my main concern is that the 120 ft pole doesn’t adversely affect the “skyline” of the park. Having done a little research today’s modern evergreen or elm “stealth” monopoles are much better than the ones of a few years ago which frankly looked silly.
Here are some pictures:
This represents a 2 branch per ft. pole with no “antenna socks”. The difference between 2 and 3 is pretty clear. IMO this wouldn’t be acceptable.
Here is a “3 branch per ft. pole” with antenna socks. Much better looking then the less dense pole. The added branch density makes for a more camouflaged pole.
Here is a how a 120ft pole towers above a wooded lot in the winter. These trees are roughly 80 ft in height vs. the 120 ft. pole. This is close to what the pole would look like on the Kratzer farm until the tree grove matures fully. Some of the species in the woods will eventually reach about 100 ft.
So now curious. What do you think? I am especially interested in hearing from those who live near the proposed tower.
