cell phone tower issues: placement, leases, and municipal...
TRANSCRIPT
-
Cell Phone Tower Issues:
Placement, Leases, and Municipal Regulation Navigating HR 3630 and Other Siting Challenges, and Evaluating Revenue-Sharing Opportunities
Today’s faculty features:
1pm Eastern | 12pm Central | 11am Mountain | 10am Pacific
The audio portion of the conference may be accessed via the telephone or by using your computer's
speakers. Please refer to the instructions emailed to registrants for additional information. If you
have any questions, please contact Customer Service at 1-800-926-7926 ext. 10.
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2012
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A
Joseph Van Eaton, Partner, Best Best & Krieger, Washington, D.C.
Gerard Lederer, Of Counsel, Best Best & Krieger, Washington, D.C.
Lee Afflerbach, Director of Engineering, Columbia Telecommunications Corp, Kensington, MD
-
Sound Quality
If you are listening via your computer speakers, please note that the quality of
your sound will vary depending on the speed and quality of your internet
connection.
If the sound quality is not satisfactory and you are listening via your computer
speakers, you may listen via the phone: dial 1-866-871-8924 and enter your PIN
when prompted. Otherwise, please send us a chat or e-mail
[email protected] immediately so we can address the problem.
If you dialed in and have any difficulties during the call, press *0 for assistance.
Viewing Quality
To maximize your screen, press the F11 key on your keyboard. To exit full screen,
press the F11 key again.
-
For CLE purposes, please let us know how many people are listening at your
location by completing each of the following steps:
• Close the notification box
• In the chat box, type (1) your company name and (2) the number of
attendees at your location
• Click the SEND button beside the box
FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY
-
If you have not printed the conference materials for this program, please
complete the following steps:
• Click on the + sign next to “Conference Materials” in the middle of the left-
hand column on your screen.
• Click on the tab labeled “Handouts” that appears, and there you will see a
PDF of the slides for today's program.
• Double click on the PDF and a separate page will open.
• Print the slides by clicking on the printer icon.
-
CELL PHONE TOWER
ISSUES Webinar – November 8, 2012
Lee Afflerbach
www.ctcnet.us
-
Engineering Issues
• Coverage
• Backhaul interconnection
• Facility issues
• Access
• Power
• Security
• RF emission
6
-
Typical New Structures
• Typically 70 to 150 ft.
• Support multiple service providers
• Room for expansion
• Shared equipment areas
• Location issues
• Height above terrain
• Vehicle traffic
• Cost
7
-
Types of Structures
• Dedicated towers
• New monopoles
• Shared towers
• Utility, broadcast, local government
• Stealth installations
• Disguised as flagpole, tree, chimney
• Distributed antenna systems (DAS)
• Low-profile
• Targeted service area
• Handle high-traffic corridors
8
-
Towers and Monopoles Self-Supporting Lattice Tower Monopole with Equipment
9
-
Stealth Installations/Disguised Monopoles
Tree Flagpole
10
-
Stealth Installations/Disguised Monopoles
“Unipole” or “Slick Stick” Light Pole Religious Structures
11
-
Shared Towers
Active AM radio tower with 800 MHz public safety, cellular, and FM antennas
Former AM radio tower with cellular and commercial radio antennas
12
-
Existing Structures Antennas Mounted on Silos Church Bell Tower
13
-
Stealth Installations Church Steeple Faux Chimneys
14
-
Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS)
REPLACES
Building Mount Monopole Lattice Tower
Carrier #1
Private ( 800 MHz , etc .)
DAS
Antennas Atop Existing Utility Poles
FIBER OPTIC CABLE BASE STATIONS
COMMUNICATIONS SHELTER
Carrier #2
Carrier #3
Base Station
Interface Rack
Fiber Interface
Rack
Carriers: Up to 8 Range: Up to 12 miles
15
-
Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) More Obtrusive Design Less Obtrusive Design
16
-
Coverage Issues
• Antenna height above terrain
• RF Frequency band (700 to 2,500 MHz)
• Type of service (voice, text, video)
• Technology (3G/4G)
• User location (open coverage, in vehicle, in building)
• Providers use their own in-house RF propagation
software modeling and standards. They often validate
coverage with in-field testing.
17
-
RF Guideline Standards
• National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)
requires the Federal Government to evaluate and set
standards
• FCC has been assigned the responsibility to set
standards for human exposure to RF energy emitted by
FCC-regulated equipment
• FCC adopted first set of guidelines in 1985
• Current FCC guidelines: OET Bulletin 65 Edition 97-01
• GAO requested in July 2012 (GAO-12-771) that FCC re-
examine radiation impact of closely held cell phones
18
-
How Were the Standards Derived?
• Expert Professional:
• National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement
• Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE)
• American National Standards Institute (ANSI)
• Comments to the FCC public rule-making proceeding
• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
• Food ands Drug Administration (FDA)
• Federal Safety and Heath Agencies
• Others
19
-
Typical RF Power Levels
20
-
Getting Ahead of the Issue
• Develop a database of existing wireless facilities
• Inventory municipal assets
• Communications towers
• Buildings
• Water towers
• Land
• Proactive planning
• Baseline existing coverage
• Define potential fill-in area
21
-
Wireless Allocation Planning
22
-
Lee Afflerbach
Columbia Telecommunications Corp
10613 Concord St
Kensington, MD 20895
410-745-5958
www.ctcnet.us
23
-
MAXIMIZING THE RETURN ON YOUR CELL LEASES/LICENSES
24
-
Telecommunications Law 25
Wireless Siting: Understanding How To Protect Local Rights While Advancing
Broadband Deployment
Joseph Van Eaton, Partner Best Best & Krieger
Washington, DC
-
Telecommunications Law 26
•This presentation will track:
Significant federal statutes impacting local zoning authority
Major FCC rules and initiatives affecting local authority
Distributed antenna systems
-
Telecommunications Law 27
Wireless Siting: What is Scope of FCC Authority?
• The FCC rules discussed in presentation challenged by localities, claiming FCC lacked jurisdiction to set nat’l zoning standards
• Rules upheld by 5th Circuit, which decided it had to defer to the FCC’s view of its jurisdiction to adopt zoning rules.
• U.S. Supreme Court granted cert to decide whether courts should defer to an agencies on jurisdiction, Arlington v. FCC, No. 10-1545.
• Case will be heard January 18, 2013, and could significantly affect FCC zoning rules
-
Telecommunications Law 28 28
Federal Statutes
• 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)– Preservation of Local Zoning Authority
• 47 U.S.C. § 253 – Removal of Barriers to Entry (not clear provision applies to wireless, Sprint Telephony PCS, L.P. v. County of San Diego, 543 F.3d 571 (9th Cir. 2008)
• Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Sec. 6409 (HR 3630) – Collocation by Right
-
Telecommunications Law 29
The Statute: 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7) • Generally preserves local zoning authority
• 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i) imposes 5 limits – localities, states
May not “unreasonably discriminate” among providers of functionally equivalent services
May not prohibit/effectively prohibit provision of service
Must act on request within “reasonable period of time”
Must deny “in writing,” supported by “substantial evidence”
May not regulate RF – may compliance w/FCC rules
• Applies to “personal wireless service facilities”
-
Telecommunications Law 30
Effect of Prohibiting
Burden of showing prohibition on provider
Most courts require a provider to show “significant gap” in coverage. Second Generation Properties, L.P. v. Town of Pelham, 313 F.3d 620, 631–33 (1st Cir. 2002); Sprint Spectrum L.P. v. Willoth, 176 F.3d 630, 642–643 (2d Cir. 1999); Omnipoint Communications Enterprises, L.P. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Easttown Tp., 331 F.3d 386, 398 (3d Cir. 2003); MetroPCS, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco, 400 F.3d 715, 732 (9th Cir. 2005).
4th Circuit may require more. 360 Degrees Communs. v. Bd. of Supervisors of Albermarle Cnty., 211 F.3d 79, 86-87 (4th Cir. 2000)
-
Telecommunications Law 31
Effect of Prohibiting (cont’d)
Provider must demonstrate at least that a “good faith effort has been made to identify and evaluate less intrusive alternatives Omnipoint Communications Enterprises, L.P. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. Of Easttown Tp., 331 F.3d 386, 398 (3d Cir. 2003); MetroPCS, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco, 400 F.3d 715, 735 (9th Cir. 2005); T-Mobile Central v. Charter Twp. of West Bloomfield, slip op., No. 11-1568 (6th Cir. 2012)
-
Telecommunications Law 32
Effect of Prohibiting (cont’d) • 1st, 7th Cir. require provider to show “no alternative
sites which would solve the problem.” Second Generation Properties, L.P. v. Town of Pelham, 313 F.3d 620, 635 (1st Cir. 2002); VoiceStream Minneapolis, Inc. v. St. Croix County, 342 F.3d 818, 834–835 (7th Cir. 2003).
• A provider cannot reject sites without giving them serious consideration. USCOC of Greater Iowa, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Des Moines, 465 F.3d 817, 825 (8th Cir. 2006).
-
Telecommunications Law 33
Unreasonable Discrimination
Courts have found unreasonable discrimination where local governments:
• Previously allowed identical (or larger) facilities in similar locations. See, e.g., Ogden Fire Co. No. 1. v. Upper Chichester Twp., 504 F.3d 370, 394 (7th Cir. 2007).
• Refused to co-locate similar equipment on already-existing poles. Nextel West v. Town of Edgewood, 479 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1232 (D.N.M. 2006).
-
Telecommunications Law 34
Substantial Evidence
• Highly deferential test; same as applies to review of admin. agency decisions, VoiceStream Minneapolis, Inc. v. St. Croix County, 342 F.3d 818, 830 (7th Cir. 2003); PrimeCo Personal Commc'ns, L.P. v. City of Mequon, 352 F.3d 1147, 1148 (7th Cir. 2003)
• Denial must be based on standards embodied in local requirements
• Denial for aesthetic reasons permitted if rooted in specific facts, not generalized objections. Helcher v. Dearborn County, 595 F.3d 710, 724-725 (7th Cir. 2010)
-
Telecommunications Law 35
The FCC’s Additional Standards
• The FCC asserted it could “implement” Section 332(c)(7).
• Adopted a nationwide standard for a “reasonable period of time” to act on wireless applications.
90 days for collocation request
150 days for new siting applications
-
Telecommunications Law 36
FCC’s Shot Clock Order (cont’d)
• Time runs from a “complete application” (30 days to notify applicant that application is incomplete).
• Application cannot be denied solely because “one or more carriers [already] serve a given geographic market.”
• Rules upheld by 5th Circuit, 668 F.3d 229 (2012)(see slide on Sup. Ct review)
-
Telecommunications Law 37
The FCC May Not Stop With Existing Shot Clock Rules
• Notice of Inquiry, Acceleration of Broadband Deployment, WC Docket No. 11-59 (Apr. 7, 2011).
• FCC asked to Set new shot clocks Limit review of collocation applications Limit rights to restrict DAS Require same access to RoW for DAS and wireline Read Section 332 and 253 to limit local zoning authority Limit fees that can be charged for use of government
property (light poles, water towers, etc.)
• Localities can and should continue to protect interests in this proceeding
-
Telecommunications Law 38
Recent Comments: FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai
•Remarks to CTIA, October 10, 2012
http://www.fcc.gov/document/commissioner-pai-remarks-ctias-mobilecon-and-summary
•Criticizes local governments
•Calls for more extensive FCC rules, including a “deemed granted” approach if locality fails to act
http://www.fcc.gov/document/commissioner-pai-remarks-ctias-mobilecon-and-summaryhttp://www.fcc.gov/document/commissioner-pai-remarks-ctias-mobilecon-and-summaryhttp://www.fcc.gov/document/commissioner-pai-remarks-ctias-mobilecon-and-summaryhttp://www.fcc.gov/document/commissioner-pai-remarks-ctias-mobilecon-and-summaryhttp://www.fcc.gov/document/commissioner-pai-remarks-ctias-mobilecon-and-summaryhttp://www.fcc.gov/document/commissioner-pai-remarks-ctias-mobilecon-and-summaryhttp://www.fcc.gov/document/commissioner-pai-remarks-ctias-mobilecon-and-summaryhttp://www.fcc.gov/document/commissioner-pai-remarks-ctias-mobilecon-and-summaryhttp://www.fcc.gov/document/commissioner-pai-remarks-ctias-mobilecon-and-summaryhttp://www.fcc.gov/document/commissioner-pai-remarks-ctias-mobilecon-and-summaryhttp://www.fcc.gov/document/commissioner-pai-remarks-ctias-mobilecon-and-summaryhttp://www.fcc.gov/document/commissioner-pai-remarks-ctias-mobilecon-and-summaryhttp://www.fcc.gov/document/commissioner-pai-remarks-ctias-mobilecon-and-summary
-
Telecommunications Law 39 39 39
• Key Provisions “(1) IN GENERAL ….State or local government may not deny, and shall
approve, any eligible facilities request for a modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station.
(2) ELIGIBLE FACILITIES REQUEST… any request for modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that involves—
(A) collocation of new transmission equipment;
(B) removal of transmission equipment; or
(C) replacement of transmission equipment.”
• FCC Has Authority To Implement, But Has Not Acted - Yet
The New Federal Collocation
Law (H.R. 3630)
-
Telecommunications Law 40 40 40
What Does this Mean?
Key terms undefined Questions:
“Wireless tower” Limited to towers solely designed to support wireless antennae?
“Base station” What facilities constitute a base station?
“Collocation”
What activities/facilities does it include?
-
Telecommunications Law 41 41 41
What Does this Mean?
Undefined terms
“substantially change the physical dimensions”
•Measured in terms of a percentage increase in height, width, and volume only? OR
• impact? (safety hazards, intrusion on sensitive areas changes that expose structures on a stealth facility)?
AND WHAT ABOUT:
•Weight or wind-loading changes?
• Noise characteristics?
•Changes to grandfathered, non-conforming use towers?
-
Telecommunications Law 42
Special Issues: Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS)
• DAS = a collection of smaller wireless antennas (nodes)
• Originally used to provide service in limited areas hard to serve with traditional antennas (public arenas, shopping malls etc.)
• DAS is representative of the wireless industry’s move to smaller, but more numerous facilities.
• FCC: DAS “nodes” could double by the end of 2012 to 20,000 and could reach 150,000 by 2017.
-
Telecommunications Law 43
Who Are DAS Providers?
• DAS providers may provide cellular services directly.
• But many “DAS providers” build antennas, lease space to cell service providers (landlord functions)
• These providers obtain telecom licenses from state, and carry traffic from antennas via fiber to carrier control facilities
• Ability to be “first in” market and to gain control
over critical locations is central to market plan.
-
Telecommunications Law 44
Q1: What Law Applies?
• Some providers claim that zoning laws cannot apply to prevent them from building antennae, because state law license entitles them to use RoW.
• Providers claim federal law prevents localities from applying same rule to them as apply to wireline providers (such as undergrounding requirements).
-
Telecommunications Law 45
Q.2 Zoning/RoW Ordinance Issues
• Many localities have antenna rules that apply to facilities outside of RoW, but are unclear as to facilities in RoW
• Localities must review ordinances to determine whether placement of antennae in RoW is addressed (note possible issue if there is a complete prohibition)
• Some localities apply zoning codes; some apply RoW ordinances; others apply both
• May also need to consider whether (under state law) DAS provider requires/does not require local franchise
-
Telecommunications Law 46
Q.3: Prohibition Issues
• Can DAS providers claim “prohibitions?”
If so, is the test whether the DAS provider needs its application granted so it can lease facilities?
Or is test whether lessees have a gap?
What sort of alternatives would a DAS provider be required to consider? Alternatives to the facilities it wishes to lease?
-
Telecommunications Law 47
Q.4 Discrimination Issues
• Can local governments treat DAS providers differently than other telecommunications service providers based on technology used?
N.Y. SMSA Ltd. P'ship v. Town of Clarkstown, 612 F.3d 97, 100 (2d Cir. 2010) (no preference for technology permitted, but local governments may be able to adopt preferences based on objective impact standards).
-
Telecommunications Law 48
Q.5 Service-ready? • Is the company ready to provide service?
Some companies (Crown Castle, NewPath) build on spec, hoping to lease the facilities to providers like AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint.
These facilities could occupy the right-of-way for no useful purpose
Under what circumstances should facilities be treated as abandoned?
For what period should permits be issued?
-
Telecommunications Law 49
Q.6 Collocation Issues
• If the local government allows any single user in RoW, will it be required to allow others to install similar facilities?
• If an antenna is permitted on one pole, must a government allow collocation on that facility
• What standards should apply to a collocation review?
-
Telecommunications Law 50
Q.8 Other Municipal Property
• If one DAS allowed on municipal property, such as street lights, must locality allow others to collocate? To use other street lights?
• Who will own the facilities? And what is the effect of various ownership options on other local rights?
-
Telecommunications Law 51
Joseph Van Eaton
Best Best & Krieger
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
Suite 4300
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: (202) 785-0600
Fax: (202) 785-1234
Cell: (202) 486-0770
Website: www.bbklaw.com
Contact Information
mailto:[email protected]://www.bbklaw.com/
-
MAXIMIZING THE RETURN ON YOUR CELL LEASES/LICENSES
MAXIMIZING THE RETURN ON
YOUR CELL LEASES/LICENSES
Gerard Lavery Lederer
November 8, 2012
52
-
MAXIMIZING THE RETURN ON YOUR CELL LEASES/LICENSES
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
LAWS • NO obligation to rent your facilities for wireless uses
– acting as landlord, not regulator
FCC “shot clock” does not apply to requests to lease land
• Wireless sites will be subject to city/county land use
regulatory authority
47 U.S.C. 337(c)(2) preserves local land use authority
subject to limitations
Cannot prohibit “or have the effect of prohibiting” wireless
services
53
-
MAXIMIZING THE RETURN ON YOUR CELL LEASES/LICENSES
CONTROL THE DRAFTING
PROCESS
• Try to avoid using anyone else’s standard form
• Wireless carriers’ standard forms are
unbelievably lopsided
• Wireless carriers can and will take advantage of
you if you aren’t careful
• Developing and using a standard form saves
time and helps avoid overlooking issues
54
-
MAXIMIZING THE RETURN ON YOUR CELL LEASES/LICENSES
PREMISES & GRANT OF
AUTHORITY
• Include an exhibit with legal descriptions,
drawings and/or photos.
• More detail you have, the easier it is to police
the agreement, especially regarding illegal
collocations and subleases.
• Use of common areas and access points
• Control signage
55
-
MAXIMIZING THE RETURN ON YOUR CELL LEASES/LICENSES
LICENSE/LEASE NOT
EASEMENT
• Granting an easement may be granting others
access to same property.
• License is all the legal authority a wireless
carrier needs.
• Lease structure is also an acceptable alternative
(but grants exclusive use, not shared use).
56
-
MAXIMIZING THE RETURN ON YOUR CELL LEASES/LICENSES
TERM
• For general leases, define term and renewal
options
• For wireless sites, typically series of 5 year
terms --- 20 to 30 years total
• Strategic decision re auto renewals or
affirmative notice required
If notice is required, keep a database of renewal
dates
57
-
MAXIMIZING THE RETURN ON YOUR CELL LEASES/LICENSES
TERM
• Beware of “options to lease” tying up sites with
no guarantee of rent
• Avoid long delivery or construction periods for
permitting with no rent – begin term
immediately and add construction period to
overall term
• 30-60 days or commencement of construction,
whichever comes first
58
-
MAXIMIZING THE RETURN ON YOUR CELL LEASES/LICENSES
DUE DILIGENCE PERIOD
• Limited time in which wireless carrier has to
obtain legal clearances and ensure that site
works for them.
• DON’T give this time away for free.
• Be sure to get indemnity for any activities on
site by licensee/consultants and require prior
consent for any borings; require copies of any
consultant reports be provided to you.
59
-
MAXIMIZING THE RETURN ON YOUR CELL LEASES/LICENSES
RENT/LICENSE FEE
• Basic fee
• Collocation fees (or address this later)
• Late Fees, Interest and Hold Over fees
Late fees are what you can get
Interest limited by law (be sure to include savings
clause to avoid usury claim)
Hold-over rent should be in the range of 150 to
200% of then-current rent.
60
-
MAXIMIZING THE RETURN ON YOUR CELL LEASES/LICENSES
WIRELESS SITE BASE RENT
• $1.8k per month to $5K per month, paid in
advance
• Offer a direct deposit option.
• Carriers typically offer low escalators – e.g.
15% every 5 years
• Try for at least 4%, maybe ask for 5% or
greater of 5% or CPI
61
-
MAXIMIZING THE RETURN ON YOUR CELL LEASES/LICENSES
ASSIGNMENT
• Require landlord approval
Wireless carriers usually want to be able to shift
sites to related corporate entities without landlord
approval
Beware of assignments to “affiliates”, tower
operating companies
• No release of original entity
62
-
MAXIMIZING THE RETURN ON YOUR CELL LEASES/LICENSES
ASSIGNMENT OR
SUBLETTING • No sublicensing without permission.
Have licensee waive rights under Civil Code §§ 1995.260, 1995.270
§6409/47 U.S.C. § 1455 regarding collocations does not affect contractual restrictions
• Licensor may refuse to consent to any proposed sublicense that involves the collocation of another carrier’s facilities.
Additional rent for sublicensees.
63
-
MAXIMIZING THE RETURN ON YOUR CELL LEASES/LICENSES
INTERFERENCE
• Ensure that you do not cause any challenges for your existing public safety uses, or any existing tenants.
• Ensure that subsequent tenants/collocators do not cause interference.
• Burden is on newcomers to cure interference caused by their arrival (not existing users).
• Be sure licensor is not responsible for interference or cure.
64
-
MAXIMIZING THE RETURN ON YOUR CELL LEASES/LICENSES
IMPROVEMENTS
• Detailed plans with prior approval
Do not agree to “approval not be unreasonably withheld,
delayed or conditioned”
Control appearance of improvements
• All work by licensee shall be performed in compliance
with applicable laws and ordinances
• Licensee is not authorized to contract for or on behalf
of licensor or impose any additional expense
65
-
MAXIMIZING THE RETURN ON YOUR CELL LEASES/LICENSES
IMPROVEMENTS & UTILITIES
• Be sure improvements will be maintained and
upgraded to comply with laws, but any new
installations must not be heavier, greater in
capacity or more space than originally granted
• Licensee pays for utilities; licensor not
responsible for any interruptions
• Do not agree to allowing licensee to use your
electric connection with a submeter
66
-
MAXIMIZING THE RETURN ON YOUR CELL LEASES/LICENSES
REMOVAL OF
IMPROVEMENTS
• Think about how to handle this – may depend
on facility type
• Immediate ownership (e.g. of light pole)
• Automatic conveyance of ownership to licensor
• Option for licensor to retain improvements or
require removal
• Require removal of footings and foundations
67
-
MAXIMIZING THE RETURN ON YOUR CELL LEASES/LICENSES
TECHNICAL STANDARDS
• Licensee agrees to comply with all applicable
governmental laws and regulations and with such
technical standards as may from time to time be
established by licensor for the premises, including,
without limitation, technical standards relating to
frequency compatibility, radio interference
protection, antenna type and location and physical
installation
68
-
MAXIMIZING THE RETURN ON YOUR CELL LEASES/LICENSES
LIMIT ACCESS
[Think post 9/11]
• 24 hour notice
• Escort
• Emergency conditions for access
69
-
MAXIMIZING THE RETURN ON YOUR CELL LEASES/LICENSES
ACCESS RIGHTS/SECURITY
• If installation on roof, limit access to certain specific
areas; require your roof contractor to approve; avoid
roof penetrations which may invalidate roof
warranties; limit cabling access to common shafts
• Limit size, weight and frequency of access to roof
• If installation across private or limited access land,
limit access and protect fencing, private or municipal
property or animals
• Put burden to maintain secure fencing on licensee
70
-
MAXIMIZING THE RETURN ON YOUR CELL LEASES/LICENSES
EVENTS OF DEFAULT /
TERMINATION BY LICENSOR
• Non-payment
• Habitual late payments
• Violation of any term, including non-permitted
collocations
• Bankruptcy
71
-
MAXIMIZING THE RETURN ON YOUR CELL LEASES/LICENSES
TERMINATION BY LICENSEE
• Carefully define when licensee can terminate
• Wireless carriers want ability to terminate for
“technological, economic, or environmental”
reasons
• Either prohibit volitional terminations or
require payment (e.g. rent for remainder of
term or 12-24 months of rent)
72
-
MAXIMIZING THE RETURN ON YOUR CELL LEASES/LICENSES
CASUALTY/INSURANCE/
INDEMNITY
• Make sure to run by your risk assessment folks
• Typical insurance is general liability, auto
liability, employer’s liability, all-risk property,
and workers’ comp
• Make sure insurance requirements apply to
contractors and subs
• Don’t accept reciprocal indemnity
73
-
MAXIMIZING THE RETURN ON YOUR CELL LEASES/LICENSES
TAXES
• Make sure it is clear that taxes due are in
addition to rent.
• Address possessory interest tax (Revenue and
Taxation Code 107.6) liability for licensee.
74
-
MAXIMIZING THE RETURN ON YOUR CELL LEASES/LICENSES
NOTICES
• All notices, requests, demands and other
communications to be in writing and delivered
to specified addresses
• Make sure to have your counsel copied.
75
-
MAXIMIZING THE RETURN ON YOUR CELL LEASES/LICENSES
QUIET ENJOYMENT, TITLE
AND AUTHORITY
• Traditional obligation of the landlord.
• Make sure you have authority – ie make sure
such use is permitted under your governing
documents.
76
-
MAXIMIZING THE RETURN ON YOUR CELL LEASES/LICENSES
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
• Strict language to prohibit any such uses.
• Batteries for back up and generators can trigger
these terms.
• Check with your environmental folks for most
recent terms – pay special attention that these
substances do not prejudice your ability to use
the site.
77
-
MAXIMIZING THE RETURN ON YOUR CELL LEASES/LICENSES
MISCELLANEOUS
• Attorney fees
• Entire agreement
• No liability for broker/agent fees
• Governing law and venue
• Severability
78
-
MAXIMIZING THE RETURN ON YOUR CELL LEASES/LICENSES
MISCELLANEOUS
• Mortgage subordination
• Limitation on liability
• RF signage and notices
• Amendments
• No relocation assistance
• Time IS OF THE ESSENCE
79
-
MAXIMIZING THE RETURN ON YOUR CELL LEASES/LICENSES
SELLING YOUR WIRELESS
LEASES
• Numerous tower operators seeking to buy
landlord lease rights
• Typically offer fraction of NPV of lease
payments
• Will emphasize threat of nonrenewal, certainty
of being paid
• May ask for amendments allowing unlimited
collocations
80
-
MAXIMIZING THE RETURN ON YOUR CELL LEASES/LICENSES
Gerard Lavery Lederer
Best Best & Krieger
1155 Connecticut Ave. NW
Suite 1000
Washington DC 20036
Phone: (202) 785-0600
Fax: (202) 785-1234
Cell: (202) 664-4621
Website: www.bbklaw.com
Contact Information
PHOTO
81
mailto:[email protected]://www.bbklaw.com/