Residents sound off on wireless tower

Things got heated at Thursday evening’s meeting at Creston School regarding a wireless internet tower proposed for the area. About two dozen Creston-area residents attended and many shared their feelings about the tower.

The school and MontanaSky Network are planning on installing a 118-foot-tall green mono-pole at 131 Creston Road, a short distance past the school. The district received the property in 1994 from the family of deceased Kalispell residents Dr. Eaner P. Higgins and Etta B. Higgins.

The approximately 100 students in kindergarten through sixth grade that attend the school, each have iPads they use for instruction.

School officials said the bandwidth that is available through the school’s current wireless setup is not adequate to properly run the devices.

“I’ve been here for 15 years, including the first 12 as a teacher here, and we’ve seen the student enrollment increase from 69 to 102 this past school year,” Principal Tami Ward said. “And the need for technology has really increased in that time, too.

“Our goal is to provide a 21st century education to our kids to prepare them for the future.”

Ward said the school currently pays $175 per month for its internet service with MontanaSky. She studied ways to improve the internet service at the school, but costs were running from $300,000 to $400,000 and a tax levy would have been necessary to pay for the service.

“This tower is no cost to the taxpayers in Creston,” Ward said.

Creston School Board Chairman Matt Hartle said the deal with MontanaSky was the best for the district.

“This is what we need for the students and we don’t want to go to the community for more money if we don’t need to,” Hartle said.

MontanaSky CEO Ryan Bowman said the school wouldn’t have to pay for construction costs, which he estimated between $150,000 and $200,000, or the fiber-optic monthly fees, which could cost between $1,000 and $2,000 per month.

Richard Dasen Jr., a business development manager with MontanaSky, said the company receives several calls weekly from people in the area about poor internet.

“We have two goals: to improve the service to the school and to people in the community,” Dasen said. “We apologize that we didn’t include the community in this before, but since there is no zoning that prohibits this, the county told us we didn’t need to get a permit.”

That was a sticking point for Creston resident Petr Kukla.

“Why are you keeping us in the dark?” Kukla asked. “Why are we going to be stuck with this? We’d gladly pay higher taxes to the school so we wouldn’t have to have this.”

A few residents voiced concerns about potential health impacts from a nearby communications tower, but Billie Joe West, a solutions architect for MontanaSky, said the wireless signal is line-of-sight and the radio waves don’t go through walls.

“These aren’t the same waves that are emitted from cellphone towers,” West said.

The appearance and location of the tower and how it could impact property values was on the minds of most, though.

Hana Kukla read a letter from area Realtor David Fetveit that stated: “My opinion toward communication towers in general is positive, as such infrastructure is an asset to most properties. However, if towers are placed in conspicuous locations; and more specifically obstructing views from residential structures, they will have an immediate negative impact on those surrounding properties.”

West responded that MontanaSky gets calls every week from Realtors who say buy-sell agreements for homes or businesses are contingent on wireless technology.

Hartle said any money the school would receive from any other providers, such as Verizon, that may put equipment on the tower, would go directly to the school.

Dasen said he believes it is unlikely more powerful cell equipment would be placed on the tower.

“We’ve tried to get Verizon to put their equipment on our towers and they’ve always refused,” Dasen said. “But, we’d be open to amending the agreement to not include cell equipment on the tower.”

Dasen also said he doubted the likelihood of any company placing cell equipment there because of the close proximity of an AT&T tower on Mennonite School Road, a few miles from the school. He also said he and others from MontanaSky would look at the property to see where the tower could be located.

“I think if we move it a little bit and it’s not sitting in front of their window, they’d be happier,” Dasen said.

The school board of trustees is scheduled to meet Monday, when they could vote on the proposal.

This isn’t the first time a communications tower near a school has spurred public feedback.

In May, the Kalispell school board voted against Verizon’s request to install, maintain and operate “communications equipment” on Flathead High School. That plan drew public outcry from residents concerned about potential health impacts of exposure to radio frequency radiation emitted by cell towers. Petitions submitted to the board garnered 1,038 signatures rejecting the proposal.

Verizon would have paid the school district $1,700 in monthly rent ­— a total of $20,400 annually.

Currently, a Verizon cellular tower is located at Memorial Field in Whitefish, which is in the vicinity of Whitefish High School.

Reporter Scott Shindledecker can be reached at (406) 758-4441 or sshindledecker@dailyinterlake.com.