Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cell Tower Lease topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
School board rejects proposed cell-tower lease after health, legal concerns raised
Summary
The board voted down a proposed lease for a new cell-tower installation near district property after members and a trustee cited health, liability and siting concerns raised by constituents and staff research.
The Teton County School District board voted unanimously June 9 to reject a proposed cell-tower lease that would have allowed a carrier to place equipment near school property.
A board member raised concerns about radio-frequency exposure near schools and cited other jurisdictions and countries that limit tower siting near schools. “Children’s brains, their skulls are really thin compared to adults, and they are much more sensitive to radiating frequency radiation,” the member said during the discussion.
Nut graf: Trustees said the lease offered limited financial benefit to the district (about $1,000 per year in the proposal) compared with legal, land-rights and perceived health risks; the board asked staff to continue due diligence but declined to approve the contract on the meeting motion.
The discussion traced a multi-year history: district staff and board members had been reviewing a proposed tower since mid-2023 and had circulated draft leases, right-of-way questions and legal reviews. At the meeting, a trustee referenced litigation involving a major carrier and pointed to examples — localities in the U.S. and several countries abroad — that prohibit or restrict towers near schools.
The board considered the lease after several trustees expressed concern that the proposed siting was on property adjacent to school facilities and would include fencing, a generator and other infrastructure. One trustee said the district already hosts multiple communications towers at the stadium and questioned the benefit of adding another low-value lease.
A motion “that we accept the contract as presented” was put to a roll-call vote and failed with each listed trustee voting no: Natalie (no), Jenny (no), Brayden (no), Kathleen (no) and Martin (no).
Ending: Board members thanked the trustee who raised the issue and said staff should continue to exercise caution when third parties request use of district land for commercial installations.
