Ravalli County commissioners on June 30 discussed a request from nearby residents for an independent, third‑party review of a proposed Vertical Bridge cell tower tied to permit WCFP‑24‑10 and agreed to have staff reach out to the company for more information. The county did not approve funding for a review at the meeting.

The request centers on a proposal that residents would pay up to $6,000 for a third‑party analysis from Cami with the Center for Municipal Solutions (CMS). The citizen proposal asked for a decision by Monday, June 30, 2025, and stated that a completed analysis would be available by July 23, 2025. Commissioners discussed whether Vertical Bridge — and by extension the tower operator named in the application — might instead fund a review or share supporting data.

The matter is tied to a variance request to a county ordinance. Commissioners said that because the matter seeks a variance from the county’s ordinance, a higher degree of scrutiny is warranted than for routine applications. Commissioners also discussed technical issues raised by residents and the consultant, including coverage modeling, drive tests, potential interference with other sites, antenna tilt and power adjustments, and the possibility of colocation on an existing tower.

County staff were asked to contact Vertical Bridge to ask whether the company would pay for or share a third‑party review, whether a drive test was performed or will be provided with the application, and whether colocation on a nearby tower (including options to extend an existing tower) is feasible. Commissioners asked to review the draft language of any letter to Vertical Bridge before it is sent. No formal vote or expenditure was taken at the meeting on the proposed $6,000 contract.

Commissioners also noted operational details discussed during the meeting: a consultant told commissioners that commercial operators typically perform drive tests one to two times per year and that field service visits for a tower often occur about once a month after installation; those procedural details were discussed as context for evaluating the application rather than as determinative requirements. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was mentioned as a federal guide for some aspects of wireless siting, but no federal determinations were reported at the meeting.

The meeting concluded without a decision on funding the independent review; commissioners moved to have staff pursue answers from Vertical Bridge and return with information. A motion to adjourn was made and seconded and the meeting was closed.