Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Tidal Network Land Sale topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Assembly rejects motion to schedule Tidal Network land-sale consideration after residents voice tower concerns

Petersburg Borough Assembly · February 2, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Petersburg Borough Assembly declined a motion to schedule consideration of a proposed land sale to Tidal Network after multiple residents raised concerns about cell tower siting, property values and EMF health risks; the motion failed 6–1.

The Petersburg Borough Assembly on Feb. 2 declined to schedule consideration of a proposed contract of sale of borough land to Tidal Network after a string of public comments raising opposition to new cell towers.

Public commenters urged the assembly to seek alternative sites and greater transparency. Anthony Taiber asked the assembly not to approve an ordinance to raise harbor fees, while residents including Tom Kowalski and John Murgas urged locating Papke's Landing tower elsewhere; Murgas said towers "will lower property values and will discourage development in the neighborhood." Dave Beebe and Jackie Tyson raised concerns about EMF radiation and urged updated emissions monitoring. Brandon Ware told the assembly the federal government had granted the 2.5 GHz signal to the Petersburg Indian Association under tribal sovereignty and said "PIA is working with Tidal Network." Becky Knight urged the assembly to use NEPA to challenge the Tidal Network project and requested an unredacted copy of Tidal Network's grant application.

A motion to place the proposed contract of sale to Tidal Network on the March 16, 2026 meeting agenda was made by Assembly Member Jeff Meucci and seconded by Vice Mayor Jeigh Stanton Gregor, but the roll call showed only Meucci voting yea and six members voting nay; the motion failed 6–1. The assembly therefore did not schedule the land-sale item for March 16.

Assembly members also debated whether to adjourn to executive session to discuss negotiation strategy on the same topic; that motion similarly failed on a roll call (three yea, four nay). The meeting later went into executive session for the borough manager's evaluation, a separate personnel matter.