Laserfiche WebLink
RELEVANT LINKS: <br />League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 8/1/2017 <br />Cell Towers, Small Cell Technologies & Distributed Antenna Systems Page 5 <br />2. State law <br />Minn. stat. § 237.162 <br />In addition to mirroring some of the federal law requirements, such as the <br />Minn. Stat. § 237.163 <br />Chapter 94, Art. 9, 2017 <br />requirement of equal treatment of all like providers, state law permits cities, <br />Regular Session. <br />by ordinance, to further regulate "telecommunications right-of-way users." <br />Minnesota's Telecom ROW Law expressly includes wireless service <br />providers as telecommunications right-of-way users, making the law <br />applicable to the siting of both large and small, wire -lined or wireless <br />telecommunications equipment and facilities, in the rights of way. <br />See further discussion of <br />State law places additional restrictions on the permitting and regulating of <br />state law restrictions in <br />Section H -A, below <br />small wireless facilities and wireless support structure placement. <br />Accordingly, cities should work with city attorneys when drafting, adopting, <br />or amending their ordinance. The Telecom ROW Law still expressly <br />protects local control, allowing cities to deny permits for reasonable public <br />health, welfare, and safety reasons, with no definitions of or limitations on <br />what qualifies as health, welfare, and safety reasons. <br />D. Court decisions <br />Minnesota Towers Inc. v. <br />The 81h U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (controlling law for Minnesota) <br />City of Duluth, 474 F.3d <br />1052 (8- Cir. 2007). Smith <br />recognizes that cities do indeed retain local authority over decisions <br />Comm. V. Washington Cty, <br />regarding the placement and construction of towers and personal wireless <br />Ark., 785 F.3d 1253 (8th Cir. <br />2015). <br />service facilities. <br />voicestream PCS11 Corp. v. <br />The 8th Circuit also has heard cases where a carrier or other <br />City of St. Louis, No. <br />4:04CV732 (E.D.Mo. August <br />telecommunications company argued they are a utility and should be treated <br />3, 2005) (city interpretation <br />as such under local ordinances. Absent a local ordinance that includes this <br />of city ordinance treats <br />communication facility as a <br />type of equipment within its definition of utilities, courts do not necessarily <br />Utility). <br />deem cell towers or other personal communications services equipment <br />functionally equivalent to utilities. <br />Additionally, courts have found that the federal law anticipates some <br />USCOC of Greater Missouri <br />v. Vill. Of Marlborough, 618 <br />disparate application of the law, even among those deemed functionally <br />F.Supp2d 1055,1064 (ED. <br />equivalent. For example, courts determined it reasonable to consider the <br />Mo. 2009) (TCA explicitly <br />contemplates some <br />location of a cell tower when deciding whether to approve tower <br />discrimination amount <br />construction (finding it okay to treat different locations differently), so long <br />providers of functionally <br />equivalent services). <br />as cities do not allow one company to build a tower at a specific location at <br />the exclusion of other providers. <br />League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 8/1/2017 <br />Cell Towers, Small Cell Technologies & Distributed Antenna Systems Page 5 <br />