A public commenter told the Petersburg Borough Assembly Oct. 6 that a proposed Title Network communications tower near an existing tower and community facilities could expose children to radiofrequency (RF) radiation and urged the borough and Title Network to reconsider the siting.

"These are the first generations of children that are exposed from conception to the grave, and we don't really know," Micah Klein said, adding she is a tribal member with children who attend a daycare located between the existing tower and the proposed new tower.

Title Network project manager Ajanna Ware and engineering staff responded to questions and described a plan to build three tower sites to expand broadband and fixed wireless coverage in Petersburg. Ware said Title Network received federal grant funds (described in the meeting as "TBCB funds") and that other carriers have received federal funds as well. Ware also said, "these towers do not emit higher levels of radio frequency than many of the things that we see in our day-to-day lives," and offered a handout to the assembly comparing various electromagnetic sources.

Engineering staff said coverage analyses had been conducted but described those studies as internal and not publicly posted. Jesse Rico, identified in the meeting as an RF engineer consultant, and another engineer on the call described the project areas and why existing towers did not fully close coverage gaps.

Title Network staff said the three Petersburg sites are Petersburg 1 (on Haugen), Petersburg 2 (Mill Road) and Petersburg 4 (Rory Road, also called the Flower Farm). They said the organization intends to build towers and offer leasing space to carriers such as GCI and AT&T, and that one proposed site (Petersburg 4) would help fill a coverage gap in the Narrows area identified by local rangers.

Assembly members raised questions about alternatives, including co-location on the existing Small Business Administration (SBA) tower near the Tlingit and Haida Regional Housing area, and asked whether leasing existing infrastructure had been considered. Title Network staff said leasing existing towers had been considered but that building new infrastructure is their objective to ensure coverage and longevity, and they noted the SBA tower’s remaining service life was not certain.

Members also expressed concern about public opposition and called for more information. Member Lehi asked where the public could review the coverage studies; Title Network said its studies were internal but offered to provide coverage maps. Several assembly members said they wanted more independent analysis and more public outreach before final siting decisions.

Manager Giesbrecht later said the assembly had previously directed staff to move the applicant’s matter forward; the manager also noted planning commission review and subdivision steps remain before any final land transaction or construction.

No formal assembly action on the tower siting or land disposition was recorded in the meeting minutes for Oct. 6. Assembly members discussed avenues for further review, including asking the planning commission and seeking additional technical information and community engagement.