Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Telecom Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Petersburg residents press Title Network and borough on controversial communications tower
Summary
Residents and assembly members raised health, notice and siting concerns about a partially built Title Network communications tower; Title Network offered to answer questions and the borough scheduled a public Q&A and paused final contract action until community questions are addressed.
Tom Kowalski, David Beebe and other residents told the Petersburg Borough Assembly on Jan. 5 that they are alarmed by a Title Network communications tower erected near residential property and questioned the project’s scope and public notice. Kowalski alleged the company’s original federal grant maps excluded many Southeast communities and said the tower on Mill Road is incomplete and diminishing nearby property values. He also cited studies and pending litigation over radio‑frequency emissions and expressed concern for children’s health.
Chris Crompley, director of Title Network, called in from Anchorage and said he was available to answer questions and correct misconceptions. Crompley encouraged residents to send questions to his email (chris@titlenet.com) and to the company’s survey. Borough Manager Steve Giesbrecht told the assembly that negotiations over a parcel near the fire hall would not be finalized until the assembly’s questions were answered and suggested collecting questions in writing for the company ahead of a public session.
Assembly members and residents agreed to collect questions for Title Network for inclusion in the Jan. 20 meeting packet (deadline for packet inclusion: Jan. 12 at noon; the assembly indicated it will accept communications for the packet through Jan. 14 and will still include communications emailed directly to the clerk). Title Network and the borough agreed to aim for an in‑person public session (proposed Feb. 2 at 6 p.m.) to allow company representatives to respond directly to community concerns. The manager said staff will post company contact details and the survey link on the borough website to make the process easier for residents.
The assembly’s discussion focused on two linked issues: whether Title Network followed existing land‑use and permitting rules on industrial parcels, and whether borough ordinances and notice procedures are outdated and need review. Several assembly members said they do not want to unduly impede businesses that comply with existing code but acknowledged the community’s concerns and signaled willingness to review zoning and public‑notice practices at upcoming work sessions.
Next steps: the assembly will gather written questions from residents and members, distribute them to Title Network, and host a public meeting in early February. The borough manager said contract finalization will be deferred until after the question-and-answer session.
