Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Telecom Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council to revisit cell-tower contract after Verizon presentation and resident objections
Summary
After a presentation from Verizon representative Brandt Racklook, the West Fork City Council voted to reopen discussion of a proposed cell-tower contract. Residents raised concerns about location near a school, tower height and RF exposure; Verizon said the site would fill downtown coverage gaps and likely be assigned to a tower company.
The West Fork City Council voted to revisit a proposed cell-tower contract with CMI/Verizon after a public presentation and extended Q&A with residents.
Brandt Racklook, identifying himself as a Verizon representative, told the council Verizon seeks to fill downtown coverage gaps and showed a coverage map illustrating spotty service in parts of town. Racklook said engineering objectives required placing a monopole in the valley to cover downtown rather than sit on a distant ridge, and that the planned monopole would be a single-pole design with a relatively small footprint. He said the tower was likely to be assigned to a third-party tower owner (Vertical Bridge) that would be required to honor the city’s contract.
Residents and council members pressed questions about safety, radio-frequency exposure, proximity to the school, aesthetics and revenue. A resident, Bonnie, said she would be able to see the tower from her yard and called it "ugly" and "a liability." Racklook responded to health concerns by saying, "Your cell phone is going to do more damage to you than this cell tower will," and cited studies he said show no established link between towers and cancer. He also said tower output is lower than many household devices and gave examples of common rooftop antennas and hospital sites.
Council members also asked about technical specifics. Racklook said the lease footprint under discussion was roughly an 80-by-80-foot ground lease area and that the contract discussed previously included an annual payment in the neighborhood of $9,000. Tower height options were discussed in the meeting; Racklook described most towers as taller but said the model shown is shorter than many at roughly 150–180 feet. He noted that towers under 200 feet are not required by FAA rules to have lighting.
Many residents at the prior meeting had opposed the contract when it came forward; council members voted at this meeting to reopen the issue and have a fuller council discussion next month to determine whether and how to renegotiate terms. The council’s motion — amended to ask the mayor to do groundwork and to schedule a public discussion — passed on voice vote. No formal vote tally was recorded in the meeting transcript.
The council did not approve the contract at this meeting; instead it directed additional consideration and outreach before any renegotiation or final action.
