Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Telecom Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sachem board opens review of cell‑tower leases as potential revenue source
Summary
A wireless infrastructure company presented options for placing stealth cell towers on Sachem property; the board agreed to let the vendor survey district sites and return with site analyses and renderings for community review.
The Sachem Central School District Board of Education on June 4 agreed to allow a private wireless infrastructure company to evaluate school properties as potential sites for stealth-style cell towers in an effort to generate new revenue for the district.
The board’s discussion followed a presentation by Tanya Negron of the vendor, who described ‘‘stealth’’ monopoles that enclose antennas behind panels and said the company handles permitting, construction and maintenance at no up-front cost to the district, leaving only attorney-review and coordination tasks for the district. Negron said fully leased towers can produce ‘‘about $20,000 a month’’ in revenue per tower when all leasable positions are filled and cited a recent Eastport-South Manor installation she said currently brings in $4,200 a month from a single carrier.
Board members raised planning and community‑engagement concerns, and asked about permitting timelines, carrier commitments, and whether existing district utility poles could be used. The presenter said state and local approvals can take ‘‘six to nine months’’ and that each site would need a separate technical and municipal review. Board members asked for photo simulations, site‑specific revenue projections and a list of potential carriers before bringing proposals to the public.
The board had earlier moved the item from the consent/other business portion of the agenda into old business for discussion; after the presentation members agreed to authorize the vendor to begin site assessments and return with detailed analyses, renderings and projected lease revenues for board and community review. Board members emphasized that any further steps would require additional approvals, public notices and legal review.
Why this matters: trustees framed the effort as a way to create non‑tax revenue to help stabilize district finances without immediately cutting student programs. Trustees repeatedly said community notification and careful vetting would be required before any tower was sited or any lease signed.
What’s next: the vendor will coordinate site visits with facilities staff; the board asked the vendor to prepare photo‑realistic renderings, technical assessments, carrier interest reports, and projected revenue figures for each proposed location before any public engagement or lease negotiation begins.
