Fountain Green council approves cell‑tower lease, asks company to evaluate placing tower on upper water tank

The Fountain Green City Council voted May 14 to move ahead with a proposed cell‑tower lease with a private vendor while asking the company to evaluate installing the antenna on the city's upper water tank instead of the lower tank the company initially proposed.

The action follows an extended public comment period in which several residents voiced concerns about possible health effects and contamination of local water; other residents urged better cellular and internet service. Council discussion ranged from legal limits on local authority to technical siting, power and access issues, and an estimated recurring lease revenue for the city.

Why it matters: the council said it wants to preserve as much local control as federal and state law allow while also responding to complaints about poor service and high internet prices. Council members noted that if the city does not reach an agreement, a private landowner could host a tower that may be sited closer to homes.

What the council decided and how: the motion approved moving forward with the contract offered by the company identified in the meeting transcript as APC (transcribed elsewhere in the discussion as "ABC") rather than the document named VerticalBridge. The council amended that motion to add a formal request that the company evaluate siting the tower on Fountain Green's upper water tank prior to final placement on the lower tank. The amended motion passed on a roll call vote recorded in the meeting transcript as: Carrie Farnsworth — yes; Allison — yes; Rod — no; Ken — yes; Jacob — yes. The mover and seconder were not identified by full name in the transcript record.

Discussion highlights: - Legal limits: council members repeated that federal law restricts municipalities from outright prohibiting wireless carriers from placing infrastructure; however, the city retains authority to specify where facilities may be sited within municipal limits and to set reasonable design and permitting conditions. - Health and environment concerns: multiple public commenters asked whether radiofrequency emissions or tower construction could contaminate the city's water supply or increase cancer risk. Council members and invited speakers said current, peer‑reviewed research is inconclusive in linking cell towers to cancer and that monitoring and testing continue; at least one speaker urged the council to rely on recent, peer‑reviewed sources rather than undated internet claims. - Siting and alternatives: council members pressed technical questions about two municipal water tanks described in the meeting as the "lower tank" (near several homes and the originally proposed tower footprint) and the "upper tank" (higher and with more open space). City staff and council members said the upper tank would be more expensive for the vendor to develop because of slope and access, but it would place the tower farther from nearby residences and simplify on‑site construction. Council members asked the company to explain why it favored the lower tank and to document cost and engineering tradeoffs if the upper tank were considered. - Local benefits and tradeoffs: proponents at the meeting highlighted improved cell and cellular‑based internet coverage for residents who now lack reliable service, potential new competition for local internet service, and a projected city lease payment estimated in the meeting at roughly $16,000–$20,000 per year (figures stated by speakers in the public meeting). Opponents emphasized uncertainty in long‑term health and environmental effects and urged caution.

Direction to staff and next steps: the council authorized staff to pursue the contract with the vendor identified in the meeting, including negotiations that ask the vendor to evaluate the upper water tank site and to explain any engineering or cost reasons the vendor prefers the lower tank. Council members also agreed to meet with the vendor if needed and to report back on the vendor's evaluation. If the vendor declines to evaluate the upper tank, the motion as amended authorizes proceeding with the lower tank site and continuing to press for reasonable mitigation conditions.

Context and limitations: the council repeatedly noted its limited legal authority to ban carriers; its leverage is primarily in siting, permit conditions and the fact the city owns certain property where a lease could be executed. Several council members and residents warned that if the city places restrictive conditions, a private landowner in the area could accept a carrier's proposal and allow a tower closer to homes.

Ending: the council approved the amended motion and instructed staff to seek the vendor's engineering justification for the chosen footprint and to report back to council. The council did not adopt any binding public‑health testing requirement as part of this vote; the motion focused on contract and siting evaluation.