Fountain Green residents urge council to weigh health, privacy concerns before approving proposed cell tower

At a public meeting in Fountain Green, residents urged city officials to postpone any decision on a proposed cell tower and submitted research and personal testimony raising health, wildlife and privacy concerns. A meeting facilitator said city staff are still negotiating with companies and will gather public materials before placing the item on a future City Council agenda.

The facilitator told attendees the city has been discussing cell towers “off and on” for six or seven years and that companies have approached the city to site equipment on municipal property. The facilitator said the city is collecting public comments, will “do our due diligence,” and intends to bring the proposal back to the City Council for a decision at a later meeting.

Residents focused on health risks, animal and plant effects and privacy. Cindy Anderson cited summaries she said were compiled by Physicians for Safe Technology and by other groups, saying the literature links “radio frequency sickness, cancer, and changes in biochemical parameters.” Alicia Oliver described personal symptoms: “When I do go into a city that has towers, I feel it in my head. I feel the pressure.” Annette Hansen cited studies she said show “serious health effects within 400 meters or 1,300 feet from cell towers” and said long-term effects from newer technologies such as 5G are not yet known.

Several speakers emphasized the town’s rural character and raised preservation concerns. Daryl Jacobson said Fountain Green residents moved to the area for its “unique setting” and argued the town does not need a tower unless there is a compelling public-safety justification beyond the financial offer.

City staff provided figures the companies had discussed for municipal leases: monthly payments “anywhere between $1,200 and $1,500 a month” initially, with carriers adding roughly $250 per month each as additional carriers attach to a tower; staff said most sites support four carriers. The facilitator noted the probable site under discussion is on city property near an “old water tank.”

Several residents asked about legal and regulatory limits. Staff said companies generally must obtain approvals from county authorities and that private landowners can seek county approval independent of the city; “it’s in the county” and the county issues the final approvals, the facilitator said. Attendees were told the county has previously approved other cell towers in the area.

Speakers also raised contract and liability questions. The facilitator said contracts are reviewed by city lawyers and that companies commonly include provisions limiting future liability; the facilitator acknowledged the city would try to protect itself but said contract language often addresses whether companies can be held liable later for alleged health harms.

On procedural next steps, the facilitator said written materials submitted to the city office or emailed to the front desk will be distributed to council members and that the item will be scheduled for a future City Council meeting (the facilitator identified “the third Thursday of May” as the next regular council meeting but said the date might change). The facilitator said no decision would be made that night.

Residents asked about environmental and monitoring steps. Staff said municipal drinking water is tested under state rules (monthly and other sampling as required) and that water monitoring would continue; the facilitator said that if any change were detected, current monitoring would reveal it. Attendees also asked whether animals or plants would be tested; staff did not commit to specific testing programs beyond existing water monitoring requirements.

An attendee referenced a pending legal challenge, saying that Children’s Health Defense has filed a lawsuit against the Federal Communications Commission over changes to over-the-air reception rules; Cindy Anderson provided copies of articles and studies to the mayor and city staff during the meeting.

The meeting ended with the facilitator asking the public to submit written materials to the city office or by email so staff can review and circulate them to council members before the proposal returns to a future agenda.