City staff brief commissioners as Ubiquiti and Gateway propose citywide fiber in Fargo right‑of‑way

City staff and two private companies, Ubiquiti and Gateway Fiber, presented competing proposals to install fiber infrastructure across the Fargo right‑of‑way and told the City Commission the projects could touch nearly every parcel in the city.

The nut graf: The proposals differ in business models — Gateway as a vertically integrated internet provider and Ubiquiti as an open‑access network operator — but share practical impacts the city must manage: extensive locating and limited public utility easements (PUEs), sidewalk and yard impacts during installation, and staff time to process permits and locate existing infrastructure.

Kevin Gorder, who introduced the project on behalf of city engineering, said staff are not seeking action at the meeting but will collect feedback and return with an approval request at the regular meeting "on the 27th." He summarized what the proposals would require in the right‑of‑way: bore pits, potholed crossings where utilities must be exposed, occasional driveway or alley disruptions and restoration obligations under Fargo’s excavation code. "In most of our city, 10 feet back is the public utility easement. They can be in that easement to install it," Gorder said, noting that installations will sometimes be in residents’ yards.

Gorder gave a financial estimate for the city’s incremental cost of working around new fiber builds: about $350,000 per year for additional engineering and locating work. The draft agreement described different fee treatments from the two companies: Gateway reportedly asked to prorate a fee as it expands, while the Ubiquiti draft in the meeting packet would start at $350,000 up front. Gorder also said the contracts include an upside sharing provision — 5% of gross revenues beyond the baseline in scenarios where revenue exceeds the initial amount — and an escalator tied to renewals or inflation.

Representatives from the companies described their models. Sonny Nunez of Ubiquiti described open access as a common network that allows multiple service providers to use the same infrastructure and said Ubiquiti would invest for the long term. "We build infrastructure that is not necessarily used for our own exclusive rights. We allow other Internet service providers to also join the network," Nunez said, adding the company intends community engagement through door tags, yard signs and a web presence and that Ubiquiti will reimburse city costs tied to high‑volume deployment.

John Meyer, chief customer officer at Gateway Fiber, said Gateway operates as an owner‑operator and bills customers directly; he emphasized local customer service and a damage‑prevention process Gateway uses during construction, including a party auditor to verify locates and GPS mark potholes. "Our party auditor also goes out, they take pictures and photographs of that, they do a GPS reading both horizontally and vertically so that we can make sure that we know where all those facilities are at," Meyer said.

Engineering staff said the city’s current locating team of four is already busy and estimated it might need four to six additional locators or contract staff to keep pace with a large fiber deployment; both companies agreed in the discussion to reimburse costs for additional staff time or consultants. Gorder said staff would enforce restoration requirements under the excavation code and that weekly fees on permits would encourage timely completion of restoration work.

Commissioners asked practical questions about equity with existing right‑of‑way fees (some existing franchise fees and right‑of‑way payments were cited for comparison), public notification and whether the city solicited proposals. Staff said the projects were initiated by the companies approaching the city and that the city could receive similar proposals without a formal RFP; staff also noted that earlier entrants face fewer routing constraints in congested older neighborhoods.

The commission did not vote on an agreement that night. Staff said they will gather comments, finalize terms, and return for a vote at the next regular meeting.

Ending: Commissioners asked staff to continue refining cost and restoration terms, clarify proration and escalation language, and prepare a final agreement for consideration at the following meeting.