Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Small Cell Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council discusses limits on regulating small-cell antennas and uncollected node fees
Summary
City staff reviewed Texas statutory limits on regulating network providers and small wireless nodes in the right-of-way, noting nondiscrimination requirements, size and location constraints, and that the city has not received a statutorily-authorized annual per-node payment.
City staff briefed the council on constraints in Texas law that limit how municipalities can regulate small wireless nodes and network providers, including several location and equipment-size restrictions and nondiscrimination requirements that can constrain local design standards. The presenter said the statute referenced in the briefing (referred to in the transcript as "chapter 2 264") restricts a city from imposing requirements on network providers that are not applied equally to other utilities in the public right-of-way.
Staff explained specific limits discussed in the presentation: nodes may not be installed in municipal parks, may be restricted from streets adjacent to residential neighborhoods meeting the statute’s width thresholds, pole-mounted nodes cannot exceed a height differential (described in the briefing as up to 10 feet above the highest surrounding pole), and equipment cabinets may not exceed 3 feet 6 inches in either height or width. The staffer said cities may establish nondiscriminatory design standards but must apply them to all utilities using the right-of-way, which complicates efforts to target rules solely at network providers.
The presentation also noted permit-fee structures described in the briefing (an application fee equal to actual city cost or set tiers discussed in the staff memo) and an annual right-of-way compensation described in the briefing as a roughly $250 per-node payment and a separate per-transport-line fee. The presenter told the council the city has not been receiving those payments to date and that staff will follow up to determine why.
Councilmembers asked about practical responses: whether the city could require undergrounding, force collocation to limit multiple small boxes in a single yard, or seek an Attorney General opinion to clarify statutory definitions and where the city’s authority begins and ends. The staff response, as summarized for the council, emphasized the statute’s nondiscrimination requirement and recommended options such as pursuing legal guidance, exploring collocation incentives or amortization schedules for undergrounding, and confirming what fees the city is due.
Next steps identified by council and staff included investigating the unexplained lack of per-node payments and obtaining legal clarification on statutory definitions before drafting any ordinance changes.
