7 May 2018 — 1555 mdt

Don’t build a cell phone tower at Flathead High School

Updates on Friday’s post on the proposed cell tower atop Flathead High School.

I can find no documentation for School District 5’s assertion that the annual rent for the tower would be $20,400. That amount should be disregarded, and the district should replace it with the $16,800 per year contained in the contract. Meanwhile, reporters should stop using the higher figure.

School board action deferred to 12 June. The 15 May forum is still on, but the school board has deferred discussion and consideration of the project until after the public comment window closes on 8 June.

Below, notes on several aspects of the issue, followed by my conclusions and recommendation.

Safety

Electromagnet radiation. Groups opposing the tower are concentrating on the potential adverse health effects of the EMR the equipment would emit. They’re showing a 71-minute Film, Generation Zapped, at SD-5’s headquarters tomorrow.

On this issue, I’m relying on the American Cancer Society’s page on cell phone towers. I’m not convinced that EMR from the tower would be a health hazard. Others are. They’re sincere and their concerns should be received respectfully.

Everyone, incidentally, should be mindful that the internet is rife with impressive appearing websites that support almost any position one wants to take. The sad end to Pierre Salinger’s career serves as an object lesson on the perils of not being sufficiently skeptical about sources. Former Reagan and Bush 41 official Bruce Bartlett’s new book, The Truth Matters, provides excellent advice on how and where to dig for the facts and stay out of trouble.

Backup power. Section 7(b) of the proposed contract allows the cell tower owner to:

…install, maintain and/or provide access to and use of, as necessary (during any power interruption at the Premises), a temporary power source, and all related equipment and appurtenances within the Premises, or elsewhere on the Property in such locations as reasonably approved by LESSOR. LESSEE shall have the right to install conduits connecting the temporary power source and related appurtenances to the Premises.

Backup power does not seem to be a regulatory requirement. But if backup power is installed, it likely would be a diesel generator in a power shed on the school’s roof or grounds. An uninterrupted power supply would require combining the generator with a bank of batteries. The following table from Cummins Diesel shows the amount of power required:

Diesel fuel is not as flammable as gasoline, but it’s still flammable. A tank of diesel fuel on the roof of the school, or in a generator shed somewhere on the school grounds, would be a fire hazard.

Terrorism. Would a cell tower on top of FHS make the school a target for a terrorist act? Possibly, but the probability that the tower would invite a terrorist act is vanishingly small; so small it’s not worth worrying about. If someone alleges otherwise, look him straight in the eye while you tell him he’s he full of organic matter of animal origin that burns when dry.

Economics

Income to SD-5. Under the proposed agreement, SD-5 would receive a string of rent payments starting at $16,800 for the first year, and increasing by two percent a year starting with the second year. Calculating the net income for hosting the tower requires subtracting liability insurance (proposed contract, Section 13), staff time for contract administration, and other overhead costs.

According to Montana’s Office of Public Instruction, the 2015–2016 budget for SD-5 was $27.5 million. The cell tower would have generated 0.06 percent of that income, or less.

Impact on values of adjacent properties. According to the Environmental Health Trust:

Research indicates that over 90% of home buyers and renters are less interested in properties near cell towers and would pay less for a property in close vicinity to cellular antennas. Documentation of a price drop up to 20% is found in multiple surveys and published articles as listed below. The US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) considers cell towers as “Hazards and Nuisances.”

If a cell tower goes up on FHS, the value of surrounding properties could go down. But taxes on those properties are likely to stay the same.

Secrecy

Montana’s constitution guarantees Montanans the Right to Know what their government is doing:

Article II, Part II, Declaration of Rights, Section 9. Right to know. No person shall be deprived of the right to examine documents or to observe the deliberations of all public bodies or agencies of state government and its subdivisions, except in cases in which the demand of individual privacy clearly exceeds the merits of public disclosure.

The proposed contract for the cell tower at FHS violates that provision of Montana’s constitution:

31. NON‐DISCLOSURE. The Parties agree this Agreement and any information exchanged between the Parties regarding the Agreement are confidential. The Parties agree not to provide copies of this Agreement or any other confidential information to any third party without the prior written consent of the other or as required by law. If a disclosure is required by law, prior to disclosure, the Party shall notify the other Party and cooperate to take lawful steps to resist, narrow, or eliminate the need for that disclosure. Each Party may, without obtaining the other’s consent, provide such copies or make such disclosures to Authorized Entities if such information pertains to that Authorized Entity.

If SD-5’s school board agreed to that, it would amount to a conspiracy to deprive Montanans of their rights under Montana’s constitution.

A business entity operating with that attitude toward public disclosure always would be trying to withhold information, always trying to avoid telling the full truth.

Conclusions and recommendations

Conclusions:

Even if SD-5’s trustees conclude that the EMR from the cell tower poses no unacceptable risk to public health, the installation itself and a potential backup generator pose a risk of fire from equipment malfunction. That risk can be mitigated, but not eliminated.

The values of properties adjacent to the school may be diminished.

The costs of administering the contract will significantly diminish the income from the project.

The proposed nondisclosure agreement proves the cell tower owners will be difficult to work with, stingy with information, and always trying to avoid being subjected to legitimate public scrutiny.

The installation would add no educational value to FHS.

Recommendation. Reject the proposal. It’s more trouble than it’s worth.