Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wireless Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultants pitch cell‑tower marketing agreement to Huntsville ISD as informational item
Summary
Diamond Communications and TASB presented a no‑cost proposal for a marketing agreement to explore cell towers and rooftop antennas on district property to improve connectivity and potentially share revenue; the board took the item as information only, no vote.
HUNTSVILLE, Texas — Representatives from Diamond Communications and the Texas Association of School Boards (TASB) presented an informational proposal to Huntsville ISD trustees on a marketing agreement that would let the company solicit wireless carriers about siting antennas or towers on district property.
Dale Shoemaker of Diamond Communications described the proposal as a “simple marketing agreement” that would let Diamond approach carriers to offer Huntsville ISD sites for antennas or monopoles at no cost to the district. “All we're asking for is just a simple marketing agreement,” Shoemaker said during the presentation. Under the revenue‑share model shown to the board, the district could receive a split of rental revenue if carriers sign leases for rooftop or tower mounts; Diamond would cover permitting, design, construction, engineering and utilities.
Rich Vela, representing TASB, introduced the firm and explained that TASB had vetted Diamond through a multi‑year selection process. Shoemaker showed coverage “heat maps” for major carriers and said the maps indicate areas on and near district properties where coverage is weak and where carrier interest could be expected. He described typical tower options — a 100–150‑foot monopole needing roughly a 50‑by‑50‑foot equipment pad — and alternative camouflage designs for sensitive sites.
Board members asked questions about contract length, community impacts and the likelihood of multiple carriers colocating on a structure. Shoemaker said the proposed marketing agreement would run five years and is exclusive only to Diamond’s marketing activities; he said the company would not proceed to construct a tower without an anchor carrier committed to the site. On the carriers' willingness to colocate, Shoemaker said carriers often follow each other into a market and that Diamond aims to secure two or three providers per site.
Trustees stressed that any subsequent siting or construction would require district and city approvals and that community concerns would be addressed during permitting. The board did not vote on the proposal; the presentation was informational. Shoemaker invited district staff to follow up with questions and indicated Diamond could develop a list of potential sites, including the high school and other district properties.
The presentation materials provided to trustees included sample revenue‑sharing splits, carrier coverage maps and examples of tower and camouflaged antenna designs. Administration characterized the item as an opportunity to explore options for improving on‑campus and nearby community cellular coverage and potential non‑tax revenue, with no financial commitment required by the district at the marketing‑agreement stage.
