Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Telecommunications Leases topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rothschild board approves cell‑tower lease with $10,000 upfront for Cedar Creek Recreation Area
Summary
The Village of Rothschild approved a 25‑year lease with Vertical Bridge under a motion that secures a $10,000 upfront payment to be used for the Cedar Creek Recreation Area; recurring lease revenue was explicitly excluded from that designation. The board required contract approval and an impact statement before finalization.
The Village of Rothschild board approved a cell‑tower lease with Vertical Bridge on March 24, 2025, securing a $10,000 upfront payment earmarked for the Cedar Creek Recreation Area while leaving recurring lease revenue undesignated.
Administrator Ryan VanDeWalle told the board that negotiators had offered two options: Option 1 would pay $1,350 per month with a 2% annual escalator plus a one‑time $10,000 payment, while Option 2 would pay $1,400 per month with the same escalator but no upfront payment. VanDeWalle said Option 2 produces more revenue over a 25‑year horizon but that the upfront payment in Option 1 guarantees immediate funding for local priorities.
Trustee Rex Zemke moved and Trustee Sam Stroik seconded a motion to approve Option 1 contingent on final contract approval and completion of the required impact statement. Clerk Elizabeth Felkner asked whether the board intended all funds from the contract to be directed to Cedar Creek; after clarification the board amended the motion to specify that only the $10,000 upfront payment would be directed to the recreation area. The amended motion carried unanimously, 7‑0.
The board recorded that the $10,000 would be paid to the village if the contract is executed and that the Village Administrator is to ensure the impact statement is completed before final contract execution. The minutes do not specify the timeline for the impact statement or whether recurring lease revenue will be allocated in future budgets.
The board’s action was procedural; no expenditures from the $10,000 were recorded in the minutes and the contract itself remained subject to final legal review and execution.
