Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Broadband topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County discusses rebuilding damaged broadband towers, weighing in-house work, FEMA rules and potential RFP
Summary
Rio Blanco County officials and staff reviewed options to repair or replace fire- and weather-damaged broadband towers, discussed cost drivers (radios, backhaul, solar batteries), and agreed to gather subscriber contact lists and cost estimates before deciding whether to rebuild in-house or seek contractors or a third‑party operator.
Rio Blanco County staff described options on Oct. 14 for restoring fixed‑wireless broadband sites damaged by fire and subsequent weather, and commissioners directed staff to gather more information before deciding whether to rebuild towers themselves, hire contractors or solicit proposals from outside ISPs.
County staff said an in‑house rebuild could save on travel and contractor mobilization costs because technicians live locally, but that tracking staff hours more precisely would reduce some of those estimated savings. “If the board tells us to go rebuild the tower, do our best to rebuild the tower,” said Eric (staff member), who described both recent repairs and ongoing trouble at multiple sites.
The county operates a hybrid network of 9 primary towers and 11 secondary solar‑powered towers. Staff estimated typical hardware costs for access points at about $12,000–$13,000 per unit (each supporting roughly 50–80 subscribers, depending on provisioning) and suggested backhaul radios can be substantially more expensive—roughly in the $20,000 range. Solar battery replacements were described as “about 8 to 12 grand” and lasting roughly five to 10 years under good conditions.
The largest fixed‑wireless site, Lehi tower, has just under 500 subscribers, staff said; other high‑use sites include Lobo (around 100 subscribers) and Oak Ridge (roughly 40–50). Staff suggested cataloguing subscribers on the affected tower so the county can contact them directly about service options.
Staff also raised process limits tied to potential FEMA or state assistance. A county official noted that if FEMA funding is approved, eligible repairs must be performed by approved contractors and that FEMA cost‑share rules (the staffer paraphrased the typical 75% federal share) could affect whether the county should spend local funds immediately or wait for federal reimbursement. “If we were to receive FEMA funding … they would have to be contractors,” said a commissioner during the discussion.
Commissioners voiced mixed views about the county’s role as network operator. Some commissioners said keeping the county in “the driver’s seat” allows faster response and local flexibility during emergencies, citing examples when county control allowed staff to increase bandwidth and provide radios at community events. Others said the county should be open to hearing proposals from private providers to evaluate possible benefits from competition or a different management model. Multiple commissioners suggested inviting a company that asked for a work session to present, but most said they were not ready to make a decision now and wanted more information first.
Next steps: commissioners asked staff to provide (1) a subscriber contact list for the affected tower, (2) a clear cost estimate comparing in‑house repairs versus contractor quotes, and (3) a timeframe estimate to complete in‑house repairs. Several commissioners also recommended talking with peer counties that have operated or contracted municipal broadband to learn what works elsewhere.
The discussion ranged across technical, financial and customer‑service tradeoffs; commissioners emphasized the political and practical obligations of operating a taxpayer‑funded network and the need to protect the county’s investment and subscribers.
