Gary school board declines 50-year Crown Castle cell-tower proposal after sustained public opposition

The Gary Community School Corporation board voted unanimously to accept the superintendent's recommendation and decline a proposed 50-year lease from Crown Castle to place cell towers on district property.

Hundreds of dollars in annual payments and the 50-year term drew repeated criticism during the public-comment portion of the meeting. Multiple residents said they feared long-term health effects on students, citing headaches, sleep disruption and memory problems. One public commenter called the plan “a very foolish idea” and questioned whether children should be exposed to a multi-decade installation "when none of us would be around to see what would happen after 50 years." The commenter asked the board to "vote this proposal down." (public comment)

Willie McDonald, who identified himself as a 47-year teacher and as a state president for AFT Indiana, told the board he had polled regional locals and found only two school sites in 27 districts with cell towers. McDonald urged the board to reject the proposal because more research is needed and because the district had recently passed a referendum intended to support students, not long-term leases. "I would ask this board to no," he said when urging rejection of the offer.

Superintendent Suggs told trustees the district had reviewed the information provided by the company and community members and, after that review, “is respectfully requesting that the board vote no to this particular opportunity.” A board member moved to accept that recommendation; the motion passed on a roll call vote recorded as five yes, zero no.

The vote was announced immediately after the public discussion concluded. The transcript records the roll call as affirmative for the five members present; the board then moved to the next agenda item.

Board officials did not approve any lease or enter into a contract with Crown Castle at the meeting. Trustees did not set a new public process or timeline for reconsideration during the session; they indicated their decision was based on materials presented and substantial community opposition.

The meeting minutes show this item drew the most public participation of the night, including requests for more transparency from the company about tower locations, maintenance cost responsibilities and whether utilities would be covered. Several speakers asked the district to hold localized public meetings with parents who live adjacent to affected schools before accepting any future proposal.

Next steps: The board made a formal, recorded decision to decline the Crown Castle proposal at this meeting. Any future proposal would require a new presentation and board action recorded in minutes.