Board declines to consider Douglas High as alternative site for Verizon cell tower after lengthy public debate

The Douglas County School District Board of Trustees voted not to allow the district to be put forward as an alternative site for a proposed Verizon cell‑tower installation at Douglas High School, a decision that followed a multi‑hour presentation, an expert technical briefing and dozens of public comments.

Verizon representative Yvonne Pinto and Epic Wireless consultant Chris Hatch presented a proposal to replace an existing 58‑foot stadium light standard with an 80‑foot pole on the football stadium edge and to mount cellular antennas near the top while maintaining stadium lighting. The company said the location would help fill a coverage gap in East Minden, support first‑responder communications and would be subject to design review and permitting with the town of Minden.

Technical expert David Witkowski, CEO of OCO Solutions and a member of the IEEE standards committee on electromagnetic safety, briefed the board by phone on electromagnetic exposure and predictive modeling. He said his preliminary modeling showed predicted exposures would remain within Federal Communications Commission thresholds and that the modeled levels commonly exceed actual measured field values because predictive work assumes conservatively high operating scenarios.

The presentation prompted extensive trustee questions and a long public comment period. Dozens of residents and organized groups testified. Speakers included medical and engineering professionals offering contrasting views on potential biological and environmental effects, parents who said they would remove children from nearby schools, and others who said poor cellular service at the high school and community is a pressing safety issue. Several speakers referenced court rulings, independent reviews and state‑level studies; others urged a precautionary approach, citing uncertainty about long‑term health effects and children’s increased vulnerability.

Board deliberation centered on two themes: (1) uncertainty and public concern about potential health effects and (2) the community need for better coverage for safety and daily communication. Legal counsel clarified that the board’s vote was limited: the board could decide whether it wanted to allow the company to continue considering district property as a potential site, but setting final site placement and permitting decisions rest with local government authorities and any subsequent contract approval would require statutory processes.

Motion and vote: Trustee Bill Burns made a motion to decline putting the high school forward as an alternative site for the Verizon project; the motion was seconded. After discussion and a roll‑call, four trustees voted yes to deny the district site (Burns, Dickerson, Jansen, Knighting); three trustees recorded abstentions, and the motion carried. Legal counsel advised the board that the decision does not prevent conversations about other locations and does not preclude returning with new information.

Why it matters: The proposed site was framed by Verizon as a way to fill a local coverage gap and strengthen communications for first responders, while opponents focused on potential health risks to children and staff and possible impacts on enrollment. The vote signals community concern and will guide the county’s review of alternative sites.

Next steps: Verizon may continue its alternative‑site process with the county and town; county permitting and any school district contract would require additional negotiations and approvals. Trustees requested additional independent technical materials and flagged the option of commissioning third‑party review if the district later considers a site.

Ending: The board’s action stops consideration of Douglas High as an alternative in the current county process; trustees and staff said they will remain engaged on coverage solutions and noted the option to revisit the question if new independent analyses or community agreements arise.