School board says no to cell phone tower
Podcast Episode
JANESVILLE — A U.S. Cellular representative said his company still would like to erect a cell-phone tower on Janesville’s east side after the Janesville School Board rejected the company’s latest bid Tuesday night.
The board voted 5-3 not to approve a lease for a tower on the grounds of Marshall Middle School, 25 S. Pontiac Ave.
“We will re-evaluate our position and work with the city as best we can,” U.S. Cellular’s Ron Zechel said after the vote.
Zechel said the 120-foot-high tower is needed in that part of the city because there aren’t any tall structures on which to put the antennas.
It’s unclear what the company’s next step might be. It has tried three times before to site a tower without success. A city memorandum stated that all possibilities have been exhausted for a tower that could accommodate several cell companies.
Zechel said the board vote surprised him. He noted the board had given preliminary approval on Sept. 11, on a 7-1 vote.
Board member Tim Cullen said the board had give preliminary approval with the understanding that the city plan commission would hold a public hearing. The commission did so, but it didn’t allow comments about the possible health effects of radiation from the tower.
Federal law prohibits municipalities from rejecting a cell tower based on radiation concerns, and that was why city staff told the plan commission not to allow such testimony.
Cullen said he was shocked that residents were not allowed to speak their minds, and he wondered if the commission’s 4-3 vote would have gone the other way if the testimony had been allowed.
But Cullen’s main argument was that he, as a school board member, should be worrying about education issues and should not have to solve U.S. Cellular’s problems.
Board member Lori Stottler said she wanted the terms of the lease agreement changed so the school district could terminate it in case it was found that cell towers were harmful or if the district decided it needed the land for expansion or a softball field.
Stottler also objected to a provision that would have made the district and U.S. Cellular equally liable if there was an accident.
Resident Al Lembrich and others spoke to the board, warning of harm to health from cell-tower radiation.
The Federal Communications Commission has determined that cell towers pose no such risk, but Lembrich said some studies take an opposite view.
Asbestos and lead once were thought to be harmless but now are the subject of class-action suits, Lembrich said. “You want that liability?”
Marshall parent Darcy Worple came to the meeting after hearing similar concerns at her PTA meeting.
“I just don’t think it’s worth the potential risk to put the kids in that situation,” Worple said.
Another parent, Deborah Quinn, said she would be willing to pay higher school fees to offset the loss of the tower-lease revenue.
“You don’t need this tower as a minimal revenue source at the expense of our children’s health,” Lembrich said.
Board member Todd Bailey said the health effects are simply unknown.
“It’s just not worth it, to me, to put our kids at risk,” Bailey said.
Board member Debra Kolste said she consulted with family members in the engineering and medical fields, and they could find no proof of harmful health effects. She noted that she had heard some parents threatening to pull their children out of Marshall if the tower were built.
“I don’t like making a decision (based) on a scare tactic,” Kolste said.
How they voted
Voting to reject a tower lease: Todd Bailey, Tim Cullen, Kevin Murray, Lori Stottler and Dennis Vechinsky.
Voting against the motion: Debra Kolste, Amy Rashkin and Bill Sodemann.
Abstaining, saying he wanted to wait for more information: DuWayne Severson.
Revenue lost
The proposed lease agreement with U.S. Cellular would have brought the Janesville School District $10,000 up front and $2,000 a month with increases of 3.5 percent each year on a 30-year lease. Additional tower users each would have paid $200 a month.
However, school board members said they had heard from parents who threatened to pull their children out of Marshall Middle School and place them in Milton schools if the tower were built. School board member Bill Sodemann calculated that if just four students switched districts, the loss of state funding would offset the cell-tower income.
Sodemann said he was very “uncomfortable” with that fact, but he voted to keep the tower, anyway, saying it would be hypocritical to use his cell phone and reject the tower.
Nov 19, 2007 at 3:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Oddly enough, I don't get good reception near any of the schools on the East side (Harrison, Kennedy, Marshall and Craig), mostly directly IN the district area and in the parking areas of those schools. (btw, I'm emphasizing the word IN, not shouting it. hee hee) I would like to have my child's phone work in those areas in case she gets stranded after a sporting event, a field trip gets back early or something serious were to happen at school. But I guess I know someone else's phone will work better than our plan, and I know many other children that my girl's are friends with have cell phones as well. I'm on the fence on this issue. I see the long term effects and committment issue as well as the liability end. Why would the school have to be responsible for a structure that it doesn't own. But...we all carry cell phones and how many times do we grumble when we can't get service or we are in "roam". Interesting dilema.
Nov 19, 2007 at 3:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Touche, Third_Eye. Harnessing radiowaves if the new technology involved.
I have good cell phone reception over here on the east side, but I probably don't use my cell phone as much as most people and certainly don't use it when I'm driving around town. This leads me to question how much we need another tower--how is everyone else's reception? When do you usually experience gaps in coverage?
Nov 17, 2007 at 2:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Because people FEEL that their is a health hazard concerning a cell tower, therefore there is. Harnessing radio waves for transmission is not 'new technology' but dates back to the 1920's or before. In reality radio waves have always been there, we just developed the technology to use them. All that and even extensive recent studies does not dissuade the 'just say no' crowd.
By the way, cell reception is just fine over here on the west side of Janesville.
Nov 15, 2007 at 10:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
The municipality (City of Janesville) didn't reject the tower. The school board did--there are no grounds for a lawsuit at this point. In addition, the school board didn't reject it solely based upon health concerns, as the article states and as I included in my previous comment.
With the way our district continues to expand, why not preserve the land we've got instead of leasing it out for a minimal amount and under a contract with a company that the district can't get out of for 30 years? How much of a tax relief for each taxpayer would such a lease provide? How would the tax paying supporters of the cell tower have suggested the school district spend the money? How would the district's students have benefitted from that money? I'm in a curious mood today...
Nov 15, 2007 at 10:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
Apparently the school board has so much money that there will be no new cuts next year and maybe even reinstate the cuts made last year. They must feel that they do not need the money. How many documented cases have their been of health issues due to cell phone towers? I'm ticked that the school board continues to be reckless with taxpayer money and the possibility of lowering the tax burden.
Nov 15, 2007 at 9:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
sfcm asks - It will be interesting to see what the cell phone company's next move will be...
Article says - Federal law prohibits municipalities from rejecting a cell tower based on radiation concerns
I guess - file a lawsuit?
Nov 15, 2007 at 9:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Here are my two cents:
Kudos to the school board! And yes, yesborg, I do think your examples are silly. And I'm guessing that you do, too otherwise you probably wouldn't have asked. Although recent studies have been shown that cell phone towers do not cause any ill health effects, we all know that cell phones, and their towers, are new technology. Therefore, not enough time has passed to permit long-term (30 years was the proposed length of the lease?) studies. There have been other instances of exposure to chemicals, radiation, foods...that were seemingly safe and then years down the line, citizens have been advised to avoid exposure to prevent ill health. In addition to Asbestos and Lead--XRays, DDT, trans fats, smoking tobacco are only a few examples of such things that were found to be harmful after epidemiological studies were conducted. But I don't think that potential health effects were the only reason this was rejected.
The report states there was a combination of reasons that this was rejected--no public hearing, the school board shouldn't be concerning themselves with cell phone towers, the terms of the lease were questionable (equal liability for injuries for the cell company and the school district and no opt-out for the district, but an opt-out for the corporation), and the (relatively) small amount of money that this tower would bring the district. It will be interesting to see what the cell phone company's next move will be...
Nov 15, 2007 at midnight
Suggest removal
Why would they NOT put up the tower? I don't get it. Are people seriously concerned about radiation?
Nov 14, 2007 at 9:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Good job school board! 30 years is way too long for a school board to commit to anything. The money is not enough to make it worth it.
Nov 14, 2007 at 6:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Nice job, school board. Now get to work on banning sports because students can be injured. Why not force Blackhawk Community Credit Union move to a different location because they may be robbed, and the robbers could hold up at Marshall? Maybe drop the speed limit on I-90/39 near the middle school to prevent an out-of control car from ending up on the tennis court. Think that's silly? That stuff is more likely to happen than anyone being affected by a cellular tower. But by all means...put your children into bubbles at any expense just because you believe something you know nothing about 'could be' bad.
Nov 14, 2007 at 11:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Why should the School Board be concerned about another source of INCOME ? After all they have that great cash cow the TAXPAYER to run too. To the board members who voted no , just one question . Do you have a cell phone ?
Nov 14, 2007 at 9:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
Thank the school board for a job well done! Yea! A cell tower can be put up outside the city, Not on a school property. It's outrageous that the city hearing would not allow the publics comments. Shame on the city staff for not allowing that. I'm glad the school board members who voted to reject it put safety and health well ahead of US cellulars interest. Those that voted to keep the tower should beware that if they chose to run again for school board, I will not give them my vote! Good job to those on the school board who care!
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.