Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Broadband topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council weighs microtrenching rules for broadband after Google Fiber presentation
Summary
Staff proposed a microtrenching ordinance that allows limited trenching for fiber if boring is prohibitively costly; Google Fiber defended microtrenching as efficient while residents and some councilmembers raised concerns about long-term pavement impacts, aesthetics and the length of financial assurances.
City staff and the city engineer presented a draft ordinance to regulate microtrenching — a narrow trenching method broadband providers use to lay fiber optics — and members of the public, including a Google Fiber representative, addressed the council.
Assistant City Manager Mr. Baker (speaker 9) and City Engineer Andy Rook (speaker 15) explained the draft’s safeguards: microtrenching allowed only when directional boring is more than 50% more expensive, an engineering report showing why locating behind the curb is infeasible, two-week mailed notice to affected owners and HOAs, pre- and post-construction video documentation, standards to restore disturbed areas to a "substantial" pre-construction condition, a prohibition on horizontal (cross-street) cuts, limits of two cuts per side (four total) and traffic-control and staging restrictions (no overnight open trenches). The draft also included a financial-security requirement; staff described a two-year warranty as proposed but said the council could require a longer guarantee.
John Michael Cortez (speaker 16), identifying himself as head of government and community affairs for G Fiber (Google Fiber), told the council his company has deployed microtrenching across Central Texas and argued it is often safer, faster and less disruptive than other methods. "We find microtrenching to be a vastly superior method to avoid... conflicts," Cortez said. Residents pushed back: some reported lingering lawn damage after trenching in nearby subdivisions and expressed worry about the long-term durability of trenched pavements. Council members asked for evidence and site visits; staff said they had reviewed local deployments and would provide visual examples and additional research. Council asked staff to return with clearer financial-assurance options and community feedback before a final ordinance vote.
No final ordinance was adopted; council directed staff to refine the draft, assess longer-term warranty/surety options and share visual examples of local microtrench installations for council review.
