Board approves 55‑year Harbor Island easement to Wireless PropCo over competing higher offer claim

The Village Board on July 13 authorized the village manager to enter into a 55‑year easement and lease agreement with Wireless PropCo 3 LLC for a wireless facility at Harbor Island, approving the measure by voice vote 4–1.

Robert Cardioso, an attorney representing Wireless Edge, addressed the board before the vote and said his client had proposed a higher payment than the agreement before the trustees. "My client's offering approximately $400,000 above what's being accepted," Cardioso said, adding that the village later demanded a "$400,000 non‑refundable for any reason deposit by July 3," which he called an "impossible deal‑killing provision." He said his client asked to meet with decision‑makers and was rebuffed and that the village's procurement and coastal‑zone procedures were not followed in his view.

The board declined to negotiate from the dais and moved the resolution forward. The motion to authorize the village manager to enter the easement and lease agreement was made by a trustee and seconded; the vote carried 4–1 with one trustee opposed. A trustee noted the village is still involved in litigation related to the cell‑tower matters.

Trustees discussed that only one bidder remained in the procurement and that the recommendation on the dais favored Wireless PropCo for reasons staff summarized; one trustee said the village had concerns about consistency of representations from competing proposers. The village attorney described differences in representations among proposers and recommended Wireless PropCo for the agreements.

Board members and public speakers also raised questions about transparency in the competitive process and the business rationale for a multi‑decade easement. One member of the public later raised concerns that the village left significant revenue on the table by approving the lower offer.

The easement approval does not close outstanding legal disputes; the meeting record shows trustees acknowledged an ongoing lawsuit related to related past transactions. The board did not provide further negotiation or escrow changes from the dais during the July 13 vote.