Estes Park
Estes Park board rejects motion to deny Verizon 10-year lease
The existing tower site brings the town $23,805 a year; the proposal keeps a 15% rent increase at the five-year mark despite extending the lease term.
The Estes Park Town Board on Tuesday rejected a motion to deny Ordinance 13-26, which would extend Verizon's cell tower lease on the town's Weese lot from five years to 10.
The town has leased space in the Weese lot to Verizon for cellular tower facilities since 2016, and was receiving $23,805 annually for it. A staff member said Verizon asked to extend the next term to 10 years to provide assurance that planned technology upgrades could remain at the site beyond a five-year term. If the 10-year term is approved, the 15% increase would still apply at the five-year point.
A staff member said the company sought the longer term to help attract other providers and upgrade the existing infrastructure. The staff member said the company told the town that newer technology at the site would provide better coverage. The staff member also said high-level internet research suggested the lease rate was good for a space and facility of that size and type.
Trustee Mark Igel said he favored keeping the five-year term. He wanted the town to assess the land's value and the impact of losing the cell site, and he said the board lacked data to justify extending the lease to 10 years. "We're not making decisions tonight on data other than what our feelings are," Igel said. He also asked whether the site had been advertised for lease and said a casual conversation with a nationally operating tower provider suggested there might be interest in it.
Other board members stressed coverage. Trustee Frank Lancaster said reliable cell coverage benefits visitors and residents and that a 10-year term could encourage investment in newer technology. Mayor Gary Hall also supported the 10-year term. "You're talking for hospitals, for police and emergency services and all of that stuff," Hall said. A board member said a 10-year term would make little difference from a five-year term because the town was unlikely to make progress soon on a different use for the property.
A staff member said the town could keep the five-year lease by not approving the proposed 10-year term. Another staff member said the board could reject the proposed change and that the town would probably have to terminate the existing lease to make time for a competitive process. The first staff member said he had not been involved in the original negotiations and did not know how they were conducted, but thought the town could hold a competitive process for the site.