AT&T sued the City of Liberal, Kansas, last year after it denied a second siting application on a municipal golf course that appeared to be a hole-in-one. The City denied AT&T’s request to put a 150-foot monopole to the northwest corner of a water tower on the golf course. However, it appears the City wasn’t confident they would win the lawsuit and settled late last week.
In a court filing today, all claims and defenses between AT&T and the City of Liberal, Kansas, are dismissed without prejudice, according to a joint application filed with the District Court for the District of Kansas in Wichita. In addition, the parties agreed that each party would bear its own attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses.
In its November 23, 2023 lawsuit, AT&T said the former Vice Mayor of Liberal allegedly informed AT&T’s siting representative that the City would support an ordinance allowing a particular use permit for a 150-foot monopole on the property of the Liberal Country Club after the City denied a prior church location in 2021 due to resident opposition.
However, the City Commissioners denied their request, and AT&T sued to have the City approve their application for a Sabre Enterprises monopole on the golf course.
The City of Liberal had until April 10, 2023, to answer the lawsuit but negotiated with AT&T. It is unknown if the City approved the Liberty Country Club location or another location for the 150-foot monopole and a 70-foot by 70-foot fenced compound.
On October 11, 2022, the Commission held a public hearing on the application where unsupported claims were voiced by residents, such as possible health issues, large chunks of ice falling onto neighboring properties, lightning arcs and power surge damages, and property devaluations.
And according to the minutes of the hearing, there was a possibility of an increase in suicides since, in the past, a young single mom had taken her life by jumping off a tower in the community.
At a Commission meeting on October 25, 2022, Commissioners voted to deny AT&T’s application, finding that “it [the special use permit] is against our building codes” and “there’s no proof that we permitted a Special Use Permit to put up a tower so it’s not within our rules,” according to the complaint.
