Trustees decline to consider Verizon’s proposal to site an 80‑foot wireless pole at Douglas High amid safety concerns

After more than three hours of technical presentations, trustee questioning and public testimony on March 25, the Douglas County School Board voted to deny consideration of a proposed Verizon wireless facility at Douglas High School.

Representatives from Epic Wireless (the project lead for Verizon) had proposed replacing a 58‑foot stadium light pole with an 80‑foot monopole carrying cellular antennas; the carriers’ consultant said antennas would sit roughly 72–80 feet above ground and that equipment would occupy a small fenced compound near the pole. Verizon and Epic said the site was intended to fill a coverage gap in East Minden near Highways 88 and 395, improve indoor coverage at the high school and provide redundancy for first responders.

An electromagnetic (EME) safety consultant retained by the applicant, David Witkowski, reviewed modeling based on industry standards (IEEE/ICES C95) and said his preliminary, worst‑case predictive analysis showed no areas that would exceed Federal Communications Commission exposure limits. Witkowski described the scientific standard as focused on thermal effects — heating — and said the evidence the committee reviews finds no non‑thermal harm at levels below those limits.

Many trustees and dozens of public speakers pushed back. Parents and local residents cited independent reports and case studies they said show biological effects, long‑term risks for children and community opposition to nearby tower siting. Speakers also said a rejected county planning application for Fire Station 14 had forced Verizon to look at alternatives and that other, less‑intrusive sites were available. One public speaker said the district should “err on the side of caution” and not be the site for a trial on children’s health.

Trustees pressed applicants about cumulative exposure if multiple carriers collocate, routine and post‑install EME testing, contract terms (including removal clauses), the compound footprint (applicants estimated roughly a 15×20 to 30×30 foot equipment area) and liquidated damages for schedule delays (the applicant indicated $500 per day was in a draft). The applicant said design‑level EME reports and post‑installation measurements would be required before any construction and offered to facilitate independent, third‑party reviews if the district wanted them.

Trustee Burns moved to deny listing the high school as a viable alternative site for the Verizon project; the motion passed after roll‑call with several trustees abstaining, reflecting a mix of procedural caution and unresolved safety concerns. Trustees emphasized that the board’s vote was limited to whether the district would entertain negotiating a district lease or contract for that site; permitting and final design remain county and town responsibilities.

Board legal counsel and the applicant both noted the process is iterative: a denial at the school does not prevent the carrier from pursuing other locations in the county, and a future board could revisit the topic if new, independently verified information is provided.

Next steps: the county’s April 3 hearing will include the applicant’s alternative‑sites analysis and county planning review; the district’s trustees said they may reconvene consideration if an independent technical review or additional community input changes the factual record.