The Bethlehem Central School District’s idea of erecting a cell tower on district property to bolster the budget had a group of area residents dialing in their concerns at a recent Board of Education meeting.
Hoisting signs reading Cell towers harm our teachers and children and `Trees not towers` and `Don’t nuke our children,` approximately 15 people demonstrated outside the BC district offices prior to school board meeting on Wednesday, Oct. 7. A number attended the meeting afterward, and spoke during a public comment period at the end of the agenda.
Opponents said they had several concerns about the placement of a cell tower, especially near schools: the possibility of health effects, the aesthetic impact and how it might affect the property value of nearby homes.
`It’s one thing to use a cell phone, that’s your choice. To have your child assigned to a school with a cell tower, that’s not your choice,` said Myer Kutz, a member of the recently formed No School Towers Coalition.
Demonstrators said they think the district is trying to push the plans forward without public input, but school officials argued that there would be ample opportunity for public comment before any plans are finalized.
`This is not a done deal and the idea that we haven’t been transparent with this is really in the eye of the beholder,` said Superintendent Michael Tebbano.
The district began examining ways of opening new revenue streams during last year’s budget process, Tebbano said, and placing a cell tower on district property was one option that was deemed worthy of investigation. In May of this year, the school board selected Independent Towers LLC as a consultant after issuing a request for proposals.
Independent’s proposal highlights three possible tower locations: Clarksville Elementary, Hamagrael Elementary and land near the district’s Operations and Maintenance department near the High School.
Tebbano said that the district did not give Independent any guidance in the location selection. The district has previously examined the site near the High School as a possible location, but construction was not pursued.
`They were asked to look at our properties,` Tebbano said. `I was surprised they had mentioned the two elementary schools.`
Kutz said that the No School Towers Coalition is against towers on school property in general, even at a site like near the Operations and Maintenance department, which is located further away from instructional spaces, in part because he and others are fundamentally opposed to commercial activity on school property.
Opponents roundly cited the possibility of health impacts associated with cell towers, and read a statement attributed to David Carpenter, director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany.
`There is increasingly strong evidence that prolonged exposure to radiofrequency radiation, such as that from radio and cell towers, increases the risk of leukemia, and that prolonged use of a cell phone held against the head increases the risk of brain cancer,` read the statement.
Carpenter could not be reached for comment.
`I don’t think it’s a price worth putting our children’s health at risk for,` said Guillermo Martinez, whose daughter is in sixth grade at Bethlehem Middle School. `We don’t need to be exposing our children to harmful radiation.`
Depending on how many companies want to place equipment on a tower, the district could make anywhere from $1,000 to $20,000 annually, Tebbano said.
Opponents argued that figure is a marginal revenue when considering the district’s $88 million budget. Board of Education President James Dering acknowledged that while the figure is not staggering, it is hard to find sizable savings considering the majority of the budget accounts for personnel and instructional services.
`When you look at the school budget, there really is no fluff,` he said. `Every little bit helps, and it’s a concern to us.`
Dering said that the district has received supportive comments from the public who generally favor ideas to keep the tax levy down, and also noted that exploring commercial ventures was one idea the public brought to the board during budget forums.
The next step in the process will be to submit a letter of intent to the Bethlehem or New Scotland Zoning Board so they can schedule public hearings. The district will also hold public forums in which all the elements of project`including the possibility of health impacts`can be examined in full, said Tebbano.
He added that the district has not entered into an affidavit of agreement with Independent, and that the district’s attorneys are reviewing the process. Any final decision on construction of a cell tower will be made by the Board of Education.
“