Dysart board tables 15‑year extension of Marley Park cell‑tower easement after community and board concerns
Loading...
Summary
Board members heard details about an easement renewal with Octagon Towers for a telecommunications facility on Marley Park Elementary property that dates to 2006, including reported annual revenue. After public and board concern about health and community input, the board voted to table the contract extension for further review.
The Dysart Governing Board on Monday tabled consideration of a proposed extension to an easement agreement that allows a telecommunications provider to operate a cell‑tower facility on Marley Park Elementary School property.
District staff said the facility has been on the Marley Park campus since about February 2006 and the current extension under consideration would permit up to three additional five‑year terms, each with scheduled revenue increases. Staff reported the site generates about $1,700 per month — approximately $21,000 annually — that is deposited to the school plant fund for capital purposes.
Miss Spadell, who presented the item, said legal counsel had reviewed the proposed agreement and that the carrier indicated the facility operates well below FCC exposure limits. At least one board member and several colleagues raised concerns about electromagnetic fields (EMF), long‑term health risks for children and whether sufficient community input occurred at the time the tower was first installed.
Board Member Drake asked whether the district had collected any health studies from the carrier; the presenter said the company reported compliance with FCC limits and that the board would need to consult historical records to determine the public comment process at the time of installation.
One board member cited a court decision from Aug. 13, 2021, that had remanded the FCC’s safety limits to further review; the board member asked for additional study and community input. Several board members requested a summary of all district cell‑tower agreements (locations, contract dates and revenue) and asked staff to solicit presentations from carriers if desired.
Board discussion included practical questions about liability and removal costs. District staff said if the district allowed a contract to expire at its normal end of term, the district would not be responsible for removal; breaking a contract could create legal exposure and would require legal process.
After discussion, a board member moved to table the extension and the motion carried. Staff said they will return with a broader presentation of all district tower agreements and may solicit carrier presentations and community outreach on sites of concern.
Why it matters: The item involved use of school property, recurring revenue to the school plant fund and questions about health and community involvement. Board members requested more information before extending the long‑term easement.
