Flower Mound — Town staff and representatives from T‑Mobile and AT&T told council members at a work session that coverage shortfalls on the town’s east side, around the lake and in new western developments reflect topography, limited available land and evolving wireless technology needs.

The discussion matters because residents and council members have reported poor service in some neighborhoods and at public sites. Staff said the town has roughly 42 antenna arrays on 22 towers (heights roughly 89 to 120 feet) and approximately 160 small cells concentrated on major thoroughfares, and that providers are planning upgrades and additional sites to address capacity and coverage.

Sean St. John, T‑Mobile site development manager for Texas, said carriers generally “prefer co locating on existing structures” because co‑location speeds deployment and reduces the number of new towers. He added that wireless engineers issue a “search ring” that describes where a new site is needed and the approximate antenna height.

T‑Mobile described a mix of responses to coverage problems: upgrades to existing macro sites, added sectors to increase capacity, more small cells where demand is dense, and “new sites” where topography or lack of structures prevents improvements. The company said it has built about five sites in Flower Mound in recent years, has two funded projects in its plan of record and keeps a rolling three‑year planning horizon for upgrades and new construction.

AT&T staff emphasized similar constraints and tradeoffs. Bobby Wells, an AT&T RF engineer, said higher frequencies deliver higher data rates but do not penetrate buildings as well as lower bands, while a macro tower “lets you serve a lot of people with 1” installation in low‑density or wooded terrain. He and T‑Mobile staff also described a possible mid‑range “mini‑macro” pole (roughly 45–55 feet) as a compromise between small cells and full 80–150 foot monopoles.

Council members asked how the town can help. Staff offered to be a point of contact for carriers and developers and said they would share planning and development maps and major developer contacts so carriers can incorporate growth into capital plans. T‑Mobile also said it would be willing to set up regular check‑ins with town staff; councilmembers discussed the idea of quarterly briefings to coordinate deployments and development.

Providers noted regulatory constraints. Town staff and carriers explained that under state law small‑cell siting rules are substantially preempted (per the transcript discussion), while new macro towers generally require a special use permit and zoning review. Providers warned that low maximum tower heights or strict concealment rules can force additional towers if a single structure cannot accommodate multiple carriers.

Council members and staff said they will continue the conversation: staff will share development maps with providers, the town will explore incentives or process changes to encourage appropriate siting in growth corridors, and the council may consider whether changes to tower height limits or a tiered permitting approach are warranted. No formal action was taken at the work session.