Cellular antenna agreement discussed

By Esther Noe 

 

Up at the public works department shop area in Hill City is the big blue water tower. On top of the tower are several antennas. One of these is an AT&T antenna. 

The City of Hill City regularly receives letters from cellular companies with antennas on city property regarding the contract agreements. Typically, these letters contain requests to lower the cost but extend the agreement. 

City administrator Brett McMacken received one of these letters from AT&T at the beginning of July and brought it to the Hill City Common Council at the July 22 meeting. 

“The way that the current AT&T agreement is, it was originally signed back in August of 2000. It was for an initial term of five years, and then eligible for five renewals of five years each,” said McMacken. 

Thus, it was a 30-year agreement, and in August of 2030, the agreement is set to expire. 

With each renewal period, the cost was increased by six percent. Currently, the city receives $1,223.11 a month from that contract. This will increase by six percent in August of 2025 for the fifth renewal period. 

In the latest letter regarding the AT&T antenna, two options were provided. The first was a $975 a month rent starting Nov. 1 with a five percent increase starting Aug. 1, 2025, and an extension of the lease through July 31, 2050. 

The second option was a lump sum payment of $155,000 in exchange for a 99-year easement on city property. 

“It’s my opinion that we never want to give it. If we’re going to tie up a piece of land like that, we might as well just sell it because we can always renegotiate contracts and get a better deal,” said McMacken. 

McMacken said the concern these companies try to convey is that places like Hill City are not critical sites for antennas. 

“When they speak to me, I in turn tell them that we’re a town of a thousand people, but we’re in the middle of the Black Hills which is mostly federal land. Good luck trying to find a federal site to put up your cell tower,” said McMacken. “But I always say along with it, I’m happy to share this with city council and ask them what they would like to do with this information.” 

McMacken’s final point was that the antenna is on top of a city water tower, which was not designed to hold an antenna. 

“If you look through the agreement that was signed back in 2000, city council signed up for this agreement and agreed to one antenna array. And then within that same year, I believe, AT&T came back, and said, ‘Can we put a second antenna array? And then a third antenna array?’” said McMacken. “If you look up there right now, there’s a lot going on.”

Over the years, the top of the water tank has been damaged. However, with the antennas there, McMacken said it is difficult to make repairs. 

“My bigger hope and dream is to get them off of our tower completely. When we signed the agreement with the county for the tower across the street at the cemetery, there was discussions about whether there would be space available for a private antenna array to go over there,” said McMacken. 

The city still has six years left  on the agreement, but down the road the council could consider asking the contract companies to transition to a new spot. 

“Even after 2030, the agreement really doesn’t expire. It says it converts into a month-to-month agreement. So at some point, if we want them gone or we want to end the agreement, we’ve got to put it on notice,” McMacken said. 

Alderman Dennis Siebert asked if the city would get any rent from the contract companies if it switched to the county tower in the cemetery. McMacken said he would have to reread the agreement made with the county at that time. 

Alderman Justin Thiry asked if the council should request to complete the contract as is, but ask that the antenna be relocated after that. McMacken said that is a bigger conversation, but there are repairs that need to be done and the contract is getting close to being fulfilled. 

“There’s no hurry on it right this minute?” Mayor Tana Nichols asked. 

McMacken said there was not. He could inform AT&T that the council was taking it under advisement, was not interested in the proposal or contact them about taking the antenna off the tower by the end of the contract. 

“I think that water tower’s been in need of repair for years, and I think that being the only water tower has been a problem. We’re hoping to get a new water tower. That’s part of our water and sewer plan. So if and when that water tower is there, then we will have to be doing something. I mean, that’s the whole purpose of a new tower is so we can take the blue tower offline and get it fixed,” said alderwoman Lori Miner. 

Although not today, Miner agreed that the council should look down the line at getting rid of the antennas so it does not impact the water supply. 

McMacken said there is no redundancy on the high side water system, so the city cannot completely take the tower offline to conduct all the cleaning and maintenance needed. 

No action was required of the council at this time. Rather, McMacken was looking for a consensus on how the council would like to respond to the letter. If the council has a counter-proposal, McMacken said it could put one together or direct him to do so.

“You can spend a lot of time going down this rabbit hole unfortunately,” said McMacken. 

Miner said she would like to know if the city could get revenue sharing with the Pennington County tower should a cellular antenna transition there. However, she did not think the council was ready to have that discussion. 

McMacken pulled up the agreement as the discussion continued and said the cotu agreed on a 50/50 split of rent revenue. 

Victor Alexander asked if the city had ever looked for a way to build a platform on the tower to move the antennas out of the way. That way the repairs could be completed, but the revenue could continue coming in.

McMacken said the answer he has always received is that water towers were not meant to have antennas on top of them. As a result, the companies did not want to be part of the engineering. Although it can be done and tanks can be built with that intention, McMacken said the big blue water tank was not built that way.

With no further discussion, McMacken said he would inform AT&T that the matter was brought to the council and it was taking it under advisement. 

The next meeting of the Hill City Common Council is Monday, Aug. 12, at 5:30 p.m. at city hall.