Residents urge county and school board to reject Verizon tower sites near Pinion Hills and high school

Several dozen residents told the Douglas County Board of County Commissioners on March 12 they oppose two proposed Verizon telecommunication facilities, saying company analyses and siting choices are incomplete and that alternatives were not adequately considered.

Speakers representing a local group, Minden for Safe Technology, and several longtime area residents repeated technical and neighborhood concerns and said they have prepared alternative locations, engineering analyses and legal input ahead of appeals. The planning commission previously denied the Station 14 proposal and approved Station 6; speakers said both those decisions are on appeal with hearings set for April 3.

“The school district has been steadily in decline since 1990,” said Greg Roltson, identifying himself as a Mindontown resident, arguing that a tower near the high school could prompt parents to withdraw students and harm district revenue. “Even if you reduce 30 students out of that list… that's gonna be a decline of over $300,000 to the school district in student funding.”

Susan Roldson, who identified herself as a nurse of about 35 years’ experience in the valley, urged the commissioners to “please on the side of caution… Please don't put a tower at Station 14, the high school, and Pinion Hills.” She also said the community had paid for an independent RF engineer who identified other viable siting options.

Rhiannon, speaking for Minden for Safe Technology, summarized technical limits cited in Verizon documents and the county code: the group said Verizon’s own engineers had ruled out rooftop and stadium-light options because of height and coverage constraints, and quoted local code language limiting telecommunication facilities in the public-facility zone to 80 feet and prescribing setbacks tied to structure height. “They ruled both those locations at the high school out,” Rhiannon said, and expressed frustration that the high school siting was being returned to the table after previously being excluded.

Katrina French and Cindy Trigo, both with Minden for Safe Technology, and other residents said Verizon’s coverage maps lack transparency and conflict with the FCC’s National Broadband Map. They urged commissioners to require thorough demonstrations that proposed sites are necessary and are the least intrusive option, citing alternatives such as collocating on existing towers, upgrading existing equipment, cell splitting, or using fiber where feasible.

Bill Cerrito, also with Minden for Safe Tech, said the planning commission’s denial of Station 14 cited code and health-study concerns, while the commission approved Station 6 without the same stated reservations. “When it came to Station 6, they gave that to Verizon… they gave no reason for that,” Cerrito said, and described visual impacts he calculated for a neighborhood he said would face an 80-foot monopole "toilet-bowl brush" blocking mountain views for about 100 homes.

Speakers also asked the county to seek risk analysis and mitigation language in broader planning documents. Cindy Trigo urged staff to ask the mitigation consultant (Kara Easton, referenced by speakers) to include a technology-hazard risk evaluation in the county’s mitigation planning, saying the county had an opportunity to record such risks in the mitigation report.

Verizon’s representatives did not speak during the county meeting’s public-comment period. Several speakers said they have shared alternative locations, legal analyses and RF-engineer reports with Verizon and with county staff and expect those materials to be considered during the appeals process.

What happens next: speakers repeatedly noted an appeals hearing set for April 3. The planning commission’s prior actions — denial of Station 14 and approval of Station 6 — were cited by multiple public commentators as background for those appeals. No final county board decision on siting or permits was recorded during the March 12 meeting.

Ending: Residents asked the county and the school district to prioritize options they say would be less intrusive and to require clear, transparent evidence of need and of the “least intrusive” alternative before permitting large towers near schools and neighborhoods.