Laserfiche WebLink
RELEVANT LINKS: <br />League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 8/1/2017 <br />Cell Towers, Small Cell Technologies & Distributed Antenna Systems Page 9 <br />• A prohibition on moratoriums with respect to filing, receiving, or <br />processing applications for right-of-way or small wireless facility <br />permits; or issuing or approving right-of-way or small wireless facility <br />permits. For cities that did not have a right-of-way ordinance in place on <br />or before May 18, 2017, the prohibition on moratoria does not take effect <br />until January 1, 2018, giving those cities an opportunity to enact an <br />ordinance regulating its public rights-of-way. <br />NOTE: These additional state law requirements do NOT apply to collocation <br />on structures owned, operated maintained or served by municipal utilities. <br />Also, the small wireless statutory requirements do not invalidate agreements <br />in place at the time of enactment of the 2017 amendments (May 31, 2017). <br />47 U.S.C. § 332 (commonly <br />The siting of DAS or new small cell technologies also must comply with the <br />known as Section332 of <br />Telecommunications Act). <br />same restrictions under federal law that apply to large cell sitings. <br />Specifically, a city: <br />FCC 09-99, Declaratory <br />Ruling (Nov. 18, 2009). <br />• May not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally <br />equivalent services. <br />FCC 14-153, Report & Order <br />• May not regulate in a manner that prohibits or has the effect of <br />(October 21, 2014). <br />prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. <br />• Must act on applications within a reasonable time. <br />• Must make any denial of an application in writing supported by <br />substantial evidence in a written record. <br />Because of the complexities in the state law and the overlay of federal <br />regulations, some cities have found it a best practice to adopt or amend a <br />telecommunications right-of-way ordinance separate from their general <br />right-of-way management ordinance. Cities that do not choose to adopt <br />separate ordinances, at a minimum, should work with their attorney to <br />review and amend their existing right-of-way ordinances, if necessary, to <br />accommodate for telecommunications right-of-way users and the recent state <br />law amendments for small wireless facilities. For example, since state law <br />now recognizes small wireless facilities as a permitted use, zoning <br />ordinances that require conditional use permits for these facilities likely will <br />need amending. <br />Since wireless providers seek to attach their small cell and DAS equipment <br />to city -owned structures, many cities choose to have a separate agreement in <br />place to address terms and conditions not included in ordinances or permits. <br />Minn. Stat. § 237.163, <br />If the city chooses to do so, the law requires the city to have these <br />Subd.3a(f). <br />agreements available in a substantial form so applicants can anticipate the <br />Chapter 94, Art. 9, 2017 <br />Regular session. <br />terms and conditions. Again, cities should work with the city attorney to <br />draft a template agreement governing attachment of wireless facilities to <br />See Appendix A, Sample <br />Ordinances and Agreements. <br />municipally owned Structures in the right of way. <br />League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 8/1/2017 <br />Cell Towers, Small Cell Technologies & Distributed Antenna Systems Page 9 <br />