Several Longmont residents addressed the council on Aug. 26 seeking accommodations related to smart meters and wireless infrastructure. Speakers described a recent appeals process they said denied expert testimony and asked the council to add an analog‑meter opt‑out and to investigate alleged due‑process problems.

Susan Foster, who said she has a PO Box in Lyons and lives in the region, opened remarks describing prior research and advocacy on firefighters’ health and cell‑tower exposures and said she had appealed the city’s denial of her request to retain an analog meter. Foster said the city’s hearing officer denied her appeal and that her request was rejected on the basis she “was not disabled.” She said she had submitted expert letters and a 12‑page appeal and that those materials were not given full weight in her hearing.

Other speakers who spoke in support described similar experiences. Doe Kelly and Rosanna Jenny said they were not permitted to present certain expert witnesses at an Aug. 13 appeal hearing; Jenny named Kent Chamberlain, PhD of the Environmental Health Trust and Tony Simmons, PE, as experts who were restricted. Linda Lee told council the hearing “was an extraordinarily biased hearing designed to fail” and requested a city investigation of the hearing officer’s conduct. Speakers asked for three actions: that the city add an analog opt‑out option by amending city code, that the council hire a truly independent investigator to review the appeals and legal counsel conduct in the hearings, and that the city stop discriminatory surcharges that they said penalize residents needing accommodations.

Zoe Galloway, who identified herself as experiencing debilitating symptoms she attributes to nearby smart meters, asked the city to act within a week to permit her purchased disability modification to be installed and to return neighbors’ newer smart meters to the prior AMR meters; she described prolonged homelessness she said was caused by the city’s refusal to permit accommodations. Multiple speakers said the Americans with Disabilities Act (Title II) requires public entities to make reasonable accommodations unless the accommodation would fundamentally alter a program or create an undue burden; speakers said they were denied procedures or witnesses that would have supported their requested accommodations.

City staff and the city’s legal representatives were in the chamber for the public comments; at this meeting councilors did not take immediate policy action but asked staff to ensure appeals and due‑process procedures were correctly followed. Several councilors said they had heard the testimony and would review the written appeals and staff reports. Speakers asked for concrete steps: an amendment to the city code to permit an analog opt‑out, an independent legal review into the appeals process and the hearing officer’s conduct, and immediate accommodation for residents who say they are medically affected.

What’s next: Council members requested staff follow‑up. Any changes to city code, or a staff‑initiated independent review, would require council direction and likely a future public agenda item.